Nirmala Jagannathan, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 522/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0406 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R K MEHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 522(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 928(DEL)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 MRS. NIRMALA JAGANATHAN, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S KIRAT, VS. WARD 24(3), NEW DELHI. F-221, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI-110062. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R.K. MEHRA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMRENDRA KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL ; AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER O N 23.8.2010, IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 24.11.2010 REQUESTING FOR RECALLING THE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT FIXATION OF THE APPEAL ON 23.8.2010 AS HIS REPRE SENTATIVE DID NOT INFORM ABOUT THE SAME. THE APPLICATION WAS ACCOMPANI ED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE WAS NOT IN FORMED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FROM 06.05.2010 TO 23.8.2010. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THESE VERY S UBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR O PPOSED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E HAD ATTENDED ON 06.05.2010 WHEN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.8. 2010. MA NO. 522(DEL)/2010 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY AGED ABOUT 7 6 YEARS AND IS DEPENDENT UPON THE HELP OF OTHERS FOR MEETING LEGAL OBL IGATION. SHE HAS SPECIFICALLY DEPOSED THAT HER REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT INFORM HE R ABOUT THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE TO 23.08.2010. OBVIOUSLY, HE ALSO DID N OT ATTEND ON THIS DATE. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT NON-REPRESENTATION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE THINK IT FIT TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE HE ARD ON MERITS. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 4.1 THE CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.04.2011. THIS WAS COMMUNICATED TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE OPEN COU RT. THE ORDER WAS ALSO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.2.2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (K.G.BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2011. SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- MRS. NIRMALA JAGANATHAN, NEW DELHI. ITO, 24(3), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.