Ideal Carpets Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 42/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6578 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK KUMAR JETHWANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL MISC.APPLI. NO. 42(DEL)2011 (IN ITA NO. 4636(DEL)2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 IDEAL CARPETS LIMITED, INCOME TAX OFFICER, B-1, SAGAR APARTMENTS, TILAK MARG, V. WARD 1 1(3), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR JETHWANI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: MS. MONA MOHANTY, DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M . VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2010, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION, SINCE NONE HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. 2. BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED BY SHRI PRAKASH GUPTA, CA, WH O SENDS APPEALS TO SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, F OR ARGUMENTS; THAT HOWEVER, AFTER FILING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THO UGH AS PER THE CLERK OF SHRI PRAKASH GUPTA, THE PAPERS WERE SENT TO THE OFFICE O F SHRI MANJANI, THEY WERE NOT FOUND, AND AS SUCH, THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL COULD NOT BE NOTED IN HIS DIARY, WHICH WAS THE REASON WHY THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE MA NO. 42(DEL)2011 2 THE TRIBUNAL WENT UNREPRESENTED ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING. SHRI K.R. MANJANI, ADVOCATE HAS FILED THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION. 3. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT SINCE THE DAT E OF HEARING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL REMAINED FROM BEING NOTED IN THE DIARY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WENT UNREPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DATE COULD NOT BE NOT ED IN THE DIARY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DUE TO THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL PAPERS COULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE OFFICE OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL, AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THUS, OBVIOUSLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. 4. ACCORDINGLY, OUR ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 IS RECAL LED. THE APPEAL IS RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER, IN SITU. IT SHAL L NOW COME UP FOR HEARING ON MERITS ON 9.8.2011, A DATE ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN CO URT, IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. AS SUCH, NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEA RING SHALL ISSUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.06.2011. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.06.2011 *RM MA NO. 42(DEL)2011 3 -COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR