Sh. Jeet Pal Singh, Ambala City V. DCIT, Ambala

MA 48/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5845 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPANDEEP SHARM A
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.48/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.947/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) SHRI JEET PAL SINGH, VS. THE D.C.I.T., HOUSE NO.25, VIKAS VIHAR, CIRCLE AMBALA AMBALA CITY. (HARYANA) HARYANA. PAN: AQBPS0218B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SAPANDEEP SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 6.12.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, WHICH WAS DECIDED AND DISMISSED EX-PARTE. 2. THE REASON FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION DATED 19.1.2017 WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR PERSONAL AND UNAVOIDABLE CAUSE AND REASON AND THE ASSISTANT OF T HE COUNSEL HAD COME TO THE TRIBUNAL TO SEEK ADJOURNMEN T FOR FURTHER DATE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THAT 2 TIME PERIOD BOTH THE BENCHES WERE NOT FUNCTIONING SIMULTANEOUSLY BUT WERE BEING HELD IN CONTINUANCE O NE AFTER THE OTHER. THE ASSISTANT ENQUIRED FROM THE ST AFF AND WAS TOLD THE SAME BUT SOMEHOW HE MISUNDERSTOOD AND THOUGHT THAT THE BENCH WOULD NOT BE FUNCTIONING ON 6.12.2016 AND THE NEXT DATE WOULD BE COMMUNICATED THROUGH NOTICE OF FIXATION AS IN GENERAL ROUTINE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE WAS NEITHER CONSC IOUS NOR INTENTIONAL AND IT WAS, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TH AT THE ORDER BE RECALLED. 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE O F THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD. EXERCISING THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL P ROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASIDE AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPE AL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES REASONABLE CAUS E FOR NON-APPEARANCE, AND CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FAC TS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE FOR F RESH 3 HEARING IN DUE COURSE AND ISSUE FORMAL NOTICE OF TH E SAME TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH