Sh. Ashok Gupta, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 498/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4476 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `FRIDAY : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.498/DEL/2009 (IN I.T.A. NO.3128/DEL/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SHRI ASHOK GUPTA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX, C-195, DAYANAND COLONY, VS. CIRCLE 32(1), NEW DELHI. LAJPAT NAGAR-IV, NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI TARA NDEEP SINGH, CA. `RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PRATI MA KAUSHIK, SR. DR. O R D E R PER DEEPAK R. SHAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY THIS PETITION THE PETITIONER SEEKS INDULGENCE OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ORDER DATED 12 TH MAY, 2009 IN ITA NO.3128/DEL/2007, DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE I NCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE C ASES OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), AS ON THE DATE OF H EARING I.E. 12.5.2009 NONE 2 WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE P ARTIES INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 15 TH APRIL, 2009. 2. SHRI TARANDEEP SINGH, CA APPEARED BEFORE US ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE/APPLICANT WHEREAS SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR . DR REPRESENTED THE REVENUE. 3. IN THE MISC. APPLICATION IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL ON 12 TH MAY, 2009 THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL GOT PREOCCUPIED IN A HEARING BEFORE SPECIAL BENCH OF IT AT IN ANOTHER MATTER AND BY THE TIME HE GOT FREE, THE APPEAL WAS ALREADY HEARD AND DISMISSED IN VIEW OF NON-APPEARANCE OF ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. AFFIDAVIT OF MR. TARANDEEP SINGH IN THIS REGARD, HAS ALSO BEEN F URNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE MISTAKE COMMITT ED BY THE COUNSEL MAY BE CONDONED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SMT. P RATIMA KAUSHIK OPPOSED THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THA T THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE WH EN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING. WE, THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES, SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTOR E THE APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12 TH MAY, 2009 IS ACCORDINGLY RECALLED. 3 5. AT THE TIME OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL HAS BEEN FIXED AS 28 TH APRIL 2010 AND HENCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE DISPENSED WITH ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 7. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON CONCLU SION OF HEARING ON 5 TH MARCH 2010. SD/- SD/ (C.L. SETHI) (DEEPAK R. SHAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 5 TH MARCH, 2010. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.