Central manufacturing Technology Inst., Bangalore V. Deputy director of Income tax(exemptions), Bangalore

MA 58/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3146 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. PETN.NO.58/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 542 /B ANG/2014 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 4 - 05) M/S.CENTRAL MANUF ACTURING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 22. PETITIONER PAN: AAATC2085K VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX(E), CIRCLE 17(2), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT PETITIONER BY: SHRI N.NAGARAJU, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT B Y: SHRI G.R.REDDY, C IT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 24 /0 7 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 /07 /2015 . O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM : THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/03/2015 IN ITA NO .542/BANG/2014 FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING INITIALLY ON 15/12/2013 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 03/03/2015. HOWEVER, THE STAFF IN THE MP NO.58/BANG/2015 M/S.CENTRAL MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE. PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEE S ADVOCATE S OFFICE HAD NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING AS 13 /0 3 /2015 IN THEIR DIARY DUE TO WHICH NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 03/03/2015. IT IS , THEREFORE , STATED THAT THE ABSENCE OF THE ADVOCATE WAS NEITHER INTENTIONAL NOR DELIBERATE BUT WAS DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHICH HAPPENED IN HIS OFFICE WHILE NOTING THE DATE OF HEARING. WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE APPLICATION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE RECALL OF THE ORDER. 2. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AS WELL AS RULE 27 OF THE ITAT RULES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ABSENCE OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF H EARING WAS NEITHER WILFUL NOR DELIBERATE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03/03/2015 AND FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 18/11/2015. AS THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO FRESH N OTICE NEED BE GIVEN. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITION IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY, , 201 5 . S D/ - S D/ - ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ( SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU MP NO.58/BANG/2015 M/S.CENTRAL MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE. PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLAN T 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE