IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLN. NO.56/HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO.1667/HYD/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) M/S. SUN INFRAA, HYDERABAD (PAN ABCFS 2833 A ) V/S ADDDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX RANGE 6, HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI I.RAMA RAO DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KIRAN KATTA DR DATE OF HEARING 2 0 .06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 0 .06.2014 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLIN G THE EX - PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2013 IN APPEAL, ITA NO.1667/HYD/2012 OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD HAVE CREPT INTO THE SAME. 2. IT IS STATED IN THIS APPLICATION THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL EX - PARTE ON MERITS, OBSERVING THAT NO ONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IN FACT , HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING, AND AS SUC H, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF TH E JU D GM E NT OF THE APEX COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF ABDUR RAHAMAN AND OTHE R S V/S. ATHI FA B EGUM AND OTHE R S (6 SCC 62) AND GHANSHAM DASS GUPTHA V/S. MAKHAN L AL IN MA NO.56/HYD/2014( ITA NO. 1667 /HYD/ 12 ) M/S. SUN INFRAA, HYDERABAD 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.5950 OF 2012, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING TH ESE AVERMENTS, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX - PARTE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2013 BE RECALLED, AND THE APPEAL O F TH E ASSESSEE BE R E STORED FOR FRESH HEARING AND DISPOSAL ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE CONTRARY, OPPOSING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, AND AS SUCH THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS DEVOID OF MERIT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD, IN THE LIGHT OF THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 2 1 . 2 .201 3 . IN VIEW OF THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE FOR THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 2 1 . 2 .201 3 , AND CONSIDERING TOT ALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, WE DEEM IT FI T AND PROPER TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2013 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL F OR FRESH HEARING AND DISPOSAL ON ITS MERITS. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.2.2013 IS ACCORDINGLY RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO.1667/HYD/2012, AS ALREADY ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, IS POSTED FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL ON 2 9.9 .20 14. AS THE SAID DATE HAS ALREADY BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING IS NECESSARY. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. MA NO.56/HYD/2014( ITA NO. 1667 /HYD/ 12 ) M/S. SUN INFRAA, HYDERABAD 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 2 0 .0 6. 201 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER. D T/ - 2 0 TH JUNE, 201 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SUN INFRAA, C/O. P.R.DATLA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 6 - 3 - 788/A/9, FIRST FLOOR, DURGA NAGAR, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD 500 016. 2. ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX RANGE 6, HYDERABAD 3. 4. 5. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IV, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX III, HYDERABAD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD B.V.S.