Shri Prem Chawla, Bhopal V. The DCIT 1(2), Bhopal

MA 42/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1410 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKSHI VERMA; H P VERMA SHRI A K JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS.39 TO 45/IND/2013 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS.1 TO 7 /IND/2013) A.YS. 2000-01 TO 2006-07 PREM CHAWLA, BHOPAL PAN AAOPC 3494 N ..APPELLANT V/S. DCIT-1(2), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. VERMA, SHRI A.K. JAIN & MISS SAKSHI VERMA REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 3.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3.1.2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 6.5.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE FOR NON- 2 PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APP OINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI H.P. VERMA, SHRI A.K. JAIN AND MISS SAKSHI VERMA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT NO NOTICE FOR HEARING OF THE APPEALS WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.5.2013 MAY BE RECALLED. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE URGED THAT LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESS EE UNDERTAKES TO BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR C ONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON T HE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPEC IFICALLY WHEN THE REGISTERED NOTICE WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. UNDER T HE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBS TANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON TECHNICALITIES ESPECIALLY W HEN THE ASSESSEE 3 HAS STATED THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARANCE AS NARRATE D ABOVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL DATED 6.5.2013 IS RECALLED. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 28.1.2014. SINCE THE NEXT DATE OF HE ARING WAS DULY PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND NOTED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WILL BE ISS UED BY THE REGISTRY. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 3.1.2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3.1.2014 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYS!