Mr. Devinder Singh Pannu, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

MA 54/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0812 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIVINEETKRISHAN
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, BCHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.54/CHD/2020 IN ITA NO.322/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 (DECIDED VIDE ORDER 09.01.2017) SHRIDEVINDER SINGH PANNU, HOUSE NO. 52, SECTOR 9-A, CHANDIGARH THE ITO, WARD 1(3), CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO:ACZPP7630E APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : SHRIVINEETKRISHAN, ADVOCATE / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHIVOHRA, ADDL. CIT ! '# /DATE OF HEARING : 17.12.2020 $%&'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2020 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: THIS MISC. APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 322/C HD/2016 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT SEEKING FOR RECALLING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 09.01.2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, BUT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL NOTING THAT STATUTORY REMEDY FOR RESTORING THE APPEAL OF THE ITAT STILL L AY WITH THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THAT THERE WAS NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR APPROACHING THE ITAT FOR M.A.NO. 54//CHD/2016 MRDEVINDER SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH 2 RESTORATION OF APPEAL DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES. HENCE THE PRESENT APPLICATION BEFOR E US. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS PLACED BEFORE US AND OUR ATTENTION INVITED TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND AFTER PE RUSING THE AVAILABLE RECORD ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS THE STATUTORY REMEDY OF FILING AN APP LICATION FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-P ROSECUTION AND IN VIEW OF RULE 24 OF THE RULES, THERE IS NO PE RIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED WITHIN WHICH THE AGGRIEVED PA RTY CAN APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESTORATIO N. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, P RESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FOUND MISCONCEIVED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS SUCH BUT THE APPELLANT IS GRANTED LIBERTY TO FIL E AN APPLICATION, IF SO ADVISED, FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN DEFAULT BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2017.' THEREAFTER LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS COUNSEL FOR NON- APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE APPOINTED DATE, RATHER, THE NON- APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BENCH WAS ON ACCOUNT OF NON-R ECEIPT OF NOTICE OF HEARING WHICH WAS FIXED ON 09.01.2017, AS A RESULT OF WHICH NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE COPY OF THE REGD AD FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE ITSELF REVEALED THAT THE NOTI CE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE STATING TO T HE ABOVE EFFECT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US. M.A.NO. 54//CHD/2016 MRDEVINDER SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH 3 3. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE, BECAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE / NON PROSECUT ION ON THE STIPULATED DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE NO N-APPEARANCE WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT WAS BECAUSE NON-RECEIPT OF NOTICE O F HEARING WHICH WAS FIXED FOR 9.1.2017. THE LD. COUNSEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS S UBMITTED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT DA TED 13.11.2020.WE ARE THEREFORE CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION / AFFIDAVIT AND, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.01.2017AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL PO SITION TO BE HEARD A FRESH IN REGULAR COURSE ON 17.02.2021 . PARTIES BE INFORMED. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE PLACED I N THE MAIN FILE ALSO. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONFILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17.12.2020. SD/- SD/- (R.L. NEGI) ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17.12.2020 )) %*+,-, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ! . / CIT 4. ! . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/01 , #1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 046' / GUARD FILE M.A.NO. 54//CHD/2016 MRDEVINDER SINGH PANNU, CHANDIGARH 4