Hirday, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 410/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6017 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GURJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NOS. 411& 410(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1834 & 1833(DEL)/2009) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 & 2001-02 SHRI HRIDAY S/O SHRI DHAN COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-XVI, SAHAY, VILLAGE ANKHIR, VS. NEW DELHI. SECTOR 21D, FARIDABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI GURJIT SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER ON 24.2.2009, IN WHICH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO APPLICATIONS TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT HIS APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. I T IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STAYING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR THE LAST 85 YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME MISTAKE CO MMITTED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES IN NOT SERVING THE NOTICE ON HIM. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF MA NOS. 411 & 410(DEL)/2010 2 JUSTICE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THESE ORDERS MAY B E RECALLED. AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID AVERMEN TS. 2. BEFORE US, THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS T HAT THE NOTICE WAS POSSIBLY RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WI TH THE REMARK NO SUCH ADDRESS UNDER SOME MISTAKE. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY STAYING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR LAST ABOUT 85 YEARS. HE IS INTERESTED IN GETTING A DECISION ON THE A PPEALS ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED SO THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 2.1 THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE APPLICATIONS. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. FROM THE APPLICATIONS AND THE AFFIDAV IT, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STAYING AT THE GIVEN ADDRE SS FOR THE LAST 85 YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME ERROR ON THE PART OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WHEN IT RETURNED THE NOTICE WITH REMAR KS NO SUCH ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF SO ME MISTAKE ON THE PART MA NOS. 411 & 410(DEL)/2010 3 OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, WE THINK IT FIT TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT THE APPEALS MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (K.G.B ANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 21.01.2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI HRIDAY, S/O SHRI DHAN SAHAY, FARIDABAD. AO CIT(A) CIT-XVI, NEW DELHI. THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.