Rajesh Daggal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 569/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7380 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F (FRIDAY) BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 569(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 817(DEL)/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SHRI RAJESH DUGGAL, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 4B/34, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, VS. CO. W ARD 9(1), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALIL MISHRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.12.2011 ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE ON 13.08.2009, IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT NOBODY ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED TO 06.08.2009 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 15.06.2009. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 16.12.2011 SUBMITTING INTER-ALIA THAT THE ASSESS EE NEVER RECEIVED ANY M.A.NO. 569(DEL)/2010 2 NOTICE FROM THE REGISTRY POSSIBLY BECAUSE THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED WRONGLY AS 4B/43, OLD RAJINDER NA GAR, NEW DELHI, WHERE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS 4 B/34, OLD RAJINDER NAGAR, NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THIS ORDER WHEN THE AO TOOK UP THE SCRUTINY OF THE RETURN FOR A SUBSEQUE NT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE OF HEARING, HE HAD ALSO NOT APPOINTED ANY COUNSEL. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING FOR DECIDING IT ON MERIT S. THE LD. SENIOR DR OPPOSED THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS CASE WAS ADJOURNE D ON 15.6.2009 AT THE REQUEST OF HIS COUNSEL. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ADDR ESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE T RIBUNAL AND THE ORDER PASSED BY IT. IN FACT, ONE OF THE NOTICES HAD B EEN RETURNED BY THE AUTHORIZED COURIER WITH THE REMARKS SHIFTED. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON 15.06.2009 ON THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO APPLICATION IN WRITING IS AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. FURTHER, IN THE NOTING DATED 15.06.2009, THE NAME OF THE COUNS EL IS ALSO NOT MENTIONED. M.A.NO. 569(DEL)/2010 3 THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER SUCH C OUNSEL HAD ATTENDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. HIS VAKALAT NAMA IS NOT ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATES OF HEARING IS ACCEPTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE OR DER IS RECALLED WITH A VIEW TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING NOW ON 17.04 .2012, WHICH HAS BEEN INTIMATED TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPLICATION. NO SEPARATE NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THIS PURPO SE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (K.G. BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- RAJESH DUGGAL, NEW DELHI. ITO, COY. WARD 9(1), NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.