Ormi Textiles, Ghaziabad V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

MA 466/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7379 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H G MALIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH C DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI C. L. SETHI, JM & SHRI K. D. RA NJAN, AM MISC. APP. NO. 466 (DEL) OF 2010 [ IN I. T. APPEAL NO. 4329 (DEL) OF 2003 ]. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1991-92. M/S. ORMI TEXTILES, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C/O. M/S. MALIK AND COMPANY, VS. S PECIAL RANGE : 2, 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, MEERUT. G H A Z I A B A D [U.P.] P A N / G I R NO. FV 7824. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H. G. MALIK, ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ROHIT GARG, SR. D.R.; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FI LED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02 ND JUNE, 2010 PASSED BY THE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 . 2. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS MISC. APPLICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT HAS STATED THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT WAS ADJOURNED ON ONE GRO UND OR THE OTHER. THE LAST DATE FOR HEARING WAS ON 13/04/2010. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 9/04/201 0 SENT BY THE COUNSEL THROUGH SPEED POST ON 10/04/2010, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND TH AT THE SR. COUNSEL SHRI H.G. MALIK, ADVOCATE WHO WAS TO REPRESENT AND ARGUE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE BENCH WILL BE OUT OF STATION IN 2 MISC. APP. NO. 466 (DEL) OF 2010 CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE IN THE FAMILY OF NEAR RELATION. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT KN OWLEDGE ABOUT THE ADJOURNMENT OF APPEAL TO 2/06/2010 AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INTIMATION OR KNOWLEDGE, REPRESENTATION WAS NOT MADE BY THE COUNSEL. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT NON-APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WILLFUL AND THE ASSESSEE IS VERY M UCH INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDAN CE ON 02 ND JUNE, 2010. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, AS MENTIONED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2011 FOR WHICH NO NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED. BOTH THE PAR TIES WERE INFORMED IN OPEN COURT. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- [ C. L. SETHI ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011. *MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPLICANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. 3 MISC. APP. NO. 466 (DEL) OF 2010