Shri Shripal Pratapbhai Shah, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(4), Surat

MA 42/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4666 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.42/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2957/AHD/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 SHRI SHRIPAL PRATAPBHAI SHAH, C-904,MADHAV RESIDENCY, ANAND MAHAL ROAD, ADAJAN, SURAT. V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI HARDIK VORA RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.D.R. O R D E R THIS IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.01.2010 DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS STATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE SHIFTED TO NEW PREMISES C-904,MA DHAV RESIDENCY, ANAND MAHAL ROAD,ADAJAN, SURAT. AND FAILED TO INTI MATE THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE REGISTRY, THE NOTICE OF HEARING W AS SENT AT THE OLD ADDRESS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WHO RETURNED THE SAID NOTI CE WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. AS NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PRESENT IN THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT I S PRAYED THAT THE -2- ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.01.10 BE RECALLED AN D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE HEARD AND DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 18.01.10 AND HEARING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A SUFFI CIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT BEING PRE SENT FOR HEARING OF ITS APPEAL ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THEREFORE , WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 18.01.10 AND FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 16.7.10. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE INFORMED IN COURT AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING IS DISPENSED WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 9-07-2010. [ [ [ ( MUKUL SHRAWAT) (N.S. S AINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 9/07/2010 PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD