Hemchand, Haryana V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 503/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0407 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 503(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1839(DEL)/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 SHRI HEM CHAND, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, S/O SHRI AHRI RAM PAL, VS. WARD 47(1), NEW DELHI. VILLAGE ANKHIR, SECTOR 21D, FARIDABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI GURJEET SINGH, C.A . RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDESH GARG, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL ; AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER O N 24.02.2009, IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON THE GROUNDS INTER-ALIA THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 24.2.2009. THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF T HE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE HEARING COULD NOT BE ATTENDED TO ON T HE FIXED DATE AS NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM. IT IS FURTHER DEPOSED THAT H IS POSTAL ADDRESS IS CORRECT AND HE HAS BEEN LIVING HERE FOR THE LAST 65 Y EARS. THEREFORE, NON- DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE COULD BE ON ACCOUNT OF MI STAKE BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES OR ADDRESSING THE NOTICE INCORRECTLY. 2. THESE VERY SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE US IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED SO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THE MA NO. 503(DEL)/2010 2 LD. DR OPPOSED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER WITH THE REMARK S NO SUCH PERSON. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN STAYING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FOR LAST 65 YEARS. ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE NOTICE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT SECTOR NO. 21D WAS NOT MENTIONED THEREIN. THEREFORE, THE NOTI CE COULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED FOR LACK OF COMPLETE ADDRESS. HOWEVER, NON-ATTENDANCE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO LACK OF INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, WE THINK IT FIT TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. IT IS ORDERED ACCOR DINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 4.1 THE APPEAL SHALL BE HEARD ON 21.03.2011 ABOUT WHICH BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT. THE ORD ER WAS ALSO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.02.2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI HEM RAJ, S/O SHRI AHRI RAM PAL, FARIDABAD. ITO, 47(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.