M/s. Sree Metaliks Limited, Keonjhar V. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

MA 58/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6877 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 58 / CTK /20 1 7 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 149/CTK/2015) ( [ [ / ASSES SMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 20 12 ) M/S SREE METALIKS LIMITED, GURUDWAR ROAD, BARBIL, KEONJHAR VS. DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AECS 1828 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /AS SESSE E BY : SHRI SIDHARTHA RAY , ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , D R / DATE OF HEARING : 2 9 / 0 6 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5/07 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF ITAT ORDER, PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.149/CTK/2015 , DATED 24.08.2017 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LIMITED COMPANY AND HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR, DATED 07.01.2015 IN I.T.APPEAL NO.0166/14 - 15 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 10.04.2015 AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.03.2017, HOWEVER ON 15.03.2017 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS RE - FIXED ON 27.0 4.2017 AND THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES ON 30.03.2017. ON 27.04.2017 THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT TH R OUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO NEXT BENCH AND RE - FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29.06.2017 . BUT ON 29.06.2017 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 2 THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.08.2017 AND THE HEARING NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES ON 03.07.2017. ON 21.08.2017 ALSO NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURN MENT PETITION WAS FILED. CONSIDERING THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTING THE APPEAL , THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED TO HEAR THE CASE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN SPITE OF PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DATES MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AND HAS PASSED ORDER ON 24.08.2017. 3. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE EX - PARTE ORDER IN ITA NO.149/CTK/2015, DATED 24.08.2017, HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION I.E. MA NO.58/CTK/2017 AS UNDER : - BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK M.A. NO. 58/CTK/ 2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO.149/CTK/2015) IN THE M ATTER OF : AN APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER AND RESTORATION OF THE AFORESAID APPEAL UNDER RULE 24 OF THE I.T.A.T RULES; AND IN THE MATTER OF : SREE METALIKS LIMITED GURUDWAR ROAD, BARBIL KEONJHAR, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIREC TOR SRI MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL. . APPELLANT - VERSUS - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA. . RESPONDENT THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE APPELLANT NAMED ABOVE; MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH : 1. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 1, BHUBANESWAR M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 3 DATED.07.01.2015 PASSED IN I.T .APPEAL NO.0166/14 - 15. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, NAMELY SRB ASSOCIATES HAVING HIS OFFICE AT IDCO TOWER. 2. THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.04.2017. THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE NOTICE ON 04.04.2017 AT 1.20 P.M. 3. THE APPELLANT FORWARDED THE SAID NOTICE TO ITS AUTHORISED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO HAS FILED THE APPEAL. 4. THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE AUTHORISED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DID NOT APPEAR FOR WHICH THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EXPARTE ON 24.08.2017. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ITAT AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK PASSED IN ITA NO.149/CTK/2015 ARE ENCLOSED TO THIS APPLICATION AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A & B . 5. THAT FOR THE MISTAKE OF THE AUTHORISED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SUFFER. 6. THAT LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT FOR THE FAULT OF THE ADVOCATE/C.A THE LITIGANT SHOULD NOT SUFFER. 7. THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER. 8. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER IS FILING HEREWITH AN AFFIDAVIT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN I TA NO.149/CTK/2015 DATED.24.08.2017. PRAYER IT IS THEREFORE MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED AND GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.149/CTK/2015 DATED.24.08.2017 AND FURTHER BE PLEA SED TO RESTORE THE APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. AND FOR WHICH ACT OF ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPELLANT SHALL AS IN DUTY BOUND REMAIN EVER PRAY. CUTTACK DATED.15 - 12 -- 2 017 (APPELLANT) 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY FILED WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN W.P.NO.6543 OF 2018 AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA VIDE ORDER DATED 14.05.2018 HAS DIRECTED THE ITAT CUTTACK BENCH TO DISPOSE O F F THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WITHIN A PERIOD M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 4 OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUC TION OF CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER. THE DIRECTION S OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA ARE READ AS UNDER : - 14.05.201 8 HEARD MR. RAY, REAMED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND MR. S.S.MOHAPATRA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. MR. RAY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITS THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE RELATES TO NON - DISPOSAL OF M.A. NO.58/CTK OF 2017 ARISING OUT OF NO.149/CTK OF 2015 FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, - CUTTACK BENCH, C UTTACK. ACCORDING TO MR. RAY, THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED WITH A PRAYER FOR SETTING ASIDE THE EX. PARTE ORDER PASSED IN I.T. APPEAL NO.149/CTK OF 2015. CONSIDERING THE LIMITED NATURE OF GRIEVANCE, THIS COURT DIRECTS THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CU TTACK (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1) TO DISPOSE OF M.A. NO.58/CTK OF 2017 WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF PRODUCTION OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE WRIT APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. ISSUE URGE NT CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER ON PROPER APPLICATION. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE ITAT ON 18.05.2016. DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION FROM 21.05.2018 TO 22.06.2018 AND THE BE NCH STARTED FUNCTIONING FROM 25.06.2018. ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE WAS IMMEDIATELY POSTED AS PER THE DIRECTION S OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND FINALLY WAS HEARD TODAY AND COMPLIED THE DIRECTIONS. 5. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE S H OULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL AND, SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAFIQ AND ANOTHER VS. MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER, (1981) 2 SCC 788 AND REFERRED TO PARA 3 AS UNDER : - M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 5 3. THE DISTURBING FEATURE OF THE CASE IS THAT UNDER OUR PRESENT ADVERSARY LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE PARTIES GENERALLY APPEAR THROUGH THEIR ADVOCATES, THE OBLIGATION OF THE PARTIES IS TO SELECT HIS ADVOCATE, BRIEF HIM, PAY THE FEES DEMANDED BY HIM AND THEN TRUST THE LEARNED ADVOCATE TO DO THE REST OF THE THINGS. THE PARTY MAY BE A VILLAGER OR MAY BELONG TO A RURAL AREA AND MAY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT'S PROCEDURE. AFTER ENGAGING A LAWYER, THE PARTY MAY REMAIN SUPREMELY CONFIDENT THAT THE LAWYER WILL LOOK AFTER H IS INTEREST. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTY IS NOT ONLY NOT REQUIRED BUT HARDLY USEFUL. THEREFORE, THE PARTY HAVING DONE EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO EFFECTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS CAN REST ASSURED THAT HE HAS NEITHER TO GO TO THE HIGH COURT TO INQUIRE AS TO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE HIGH COURT WITH REGARD TO HIS APPEAL NOR IS HE TO ACT AS A WATCHDOG OF THE ADVOCATE THAT THE LATTER APPEARS IN THE MATTER WHEN IT IS LISTED. IT IS NO PART OF HIS JOB. MR. A.K. SANGHI STATED THAT A PRACTICE HAS GROWN UP IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AMONGST THE LAWYERS THAT THEY REMAIN ABSENT WHEN THEY DO NOT LIKE A PARTICULAR BENCH. MAYBE HE IS BETTER INFORMED ON THIS MATTER. IGNORANCE IN THIS BEHALF IS OUR BLISS. EVEN IF WE DO NOT PUT OUR SEAL OF IMPRIMATUR ON THE ALLEGED PRACTICE BY DISMISSING THIS MATTER WHICH MAY DISCOURAGE SUCH A TENDENCY, WOULD IT NOT BRING JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM INTO DISREPUTE. WHAT IS THE FAULT OF THE PARTY WHO HAVING DONE EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER AND EXPECTED OF HIM WOULD SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE DEFAULT OF HIS ADVOCATE. IF WE REJECT THIS APPEAL, AS MR. A.K. SANGHI INVITED US TO DO, THE ONLY ONE WHO WOULD SUFFER WOULD NOT BE THE LAWYER WHO DID NOT APPEAR BUT THE PARTY WHOSE INTEREST HE REPRESENTED. TH E PROBLEM THAT AGITATES US IS WHETHER IT IS PROPER THAT THE PARTY SHOULD SUFFER FOR THE INACTION, DELIBERATE OMISSION, OR MISDEMEANOUR OF HIS AGENT. THE ANSWER OBVIOUSLY IS IN THE NEGATIVE. MAYBE THAT THE LEARNED ADVOCATE ABSENTED HIMSELF DELIBERATELY OR I NTENTIONALLY. WE HAVE NO MATERIAL FOR ASCERTAINING THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER. WE SAY NOTHING MORE ON THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER. HOWEVER, WE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO AN INNOCENT PARTY SUFFERING INJUSTICE MERELY BECAUSE HIS CHOSEN ADVOCATE DEFAULTED. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT BOTH DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND REFUSING TO RECALL THAT ORDER. WE DIRECT THAT THE APPEAL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER IN THE HIGH COURT AND BE DISPOSED OF ACCORDING TO LAW. IF THERE IS A STAY OF DISPOSSESSION IT WILL CONTINUE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER BY THE HIGH COURT. THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION AS TO WHO SHALL PAY THE COSTS OF THE RESPONDENT HERE. AS WE FEEL THAT THE PARTY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE HE HAS DONE WHATEVER WAS POSSIBLE AN D WAS IN HIS POWER TO DO, THE COSTS AMOUNTING TO RS.200/ - SHOULD BE RECOVERED FROM THE ADVOCATE WHO ABSENTED HIMSELF. THE RIGHT TO EXECUTE THAT ORDER IS RESERVED WITH THE PARTY REPRESENTED BY MR. A.K.SANGHI. 6. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING WHEN A QUERY WAS RA ISED BY THE BENCH ABOUT THE DATES OF HEARING, WHEREIN THERE WAS NO N - APPEARANCE FROM THE M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 6 SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION OR EXPLANATIONS OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE FILED ON RECORD , T HE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ADVOCATE OR AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS AUTHORISED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, IS THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE . W HEREAS LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED OPPORTUNITIES TO REPRESENT IT S CASE BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE ADVOCATES NON - APPEARANCE CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT CA U SE AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 7. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING AFTER GRANTING ADJOURNMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE TOOK A REASONABLE VIEW AND FOLLOW ED THE RULES 24 & 25 OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 , WHICH READS AS UNDER : - [ HEARING OF APPEAL EX PARTE FOR DEFAULT BY THE APPELLANT. 24. WHERE, ON THE DAY FIXED FOR HEARING OR ON ANY OTHER DATE TO WHICH THE HEARI NG MAY BE ADJOURNED, THE APPELLANT DOES NOT APPEAR IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT : PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HA S BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED ABOVE AND THE APPELLANT APPEARS AFTERWARDS AND SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON - APPEARANCE, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHALL MAKE AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE EX PA RTE ORDER AND RESTORING THE APPEAL.] [ HEARING OF APPEAL EX PARTE FOR DEFAULT BY THE RESPONDENT. 25. WHERE, ON THE DAY FIXED FOR HEARING OR ANY OTHER DAY TO WHICH THE HEARING MAY BE ADJOURNED, THE APPELLANT APPEARS AND THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT APPEAR IN PE RSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE APPELLANT :] [ PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED ABOVE AND THE [RESPONDENT ] APPEARS AFTERWARDS AND SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON - APPEARANCE M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 7 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHALL MAKE AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL]. 8. FURTHER THE TR IBUNAL FOUND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S.CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR, (1969) 74 ITR 41 DEALT ON TH E ISSUE OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS REFERRED AT PARA 8 WHICH READS AS UNDER : - 8. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT NOTICED THE PREVIOUS HISTORY OF R. 24 AS ALSO THE TERMS IN WHICH IT CAME TO BE FRAMED AFTER THE PASSING OF THE IT ACT, 1961, WHICH ENABLES THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS DISCRETION, EITHER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT OR TO HEAR IT EX PARTE IN CASE OF NON - APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES AND FURTHER ENABLES THE TRIBUNAL TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL ON SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEING SHOWN FOR NON - APPEARANCE. AFTER REFERRING TO VARIOUS DECIDED CASES AND EXAMINING THE RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT, THE SPECIAL BENCH SUMMED UP THE POSITION THUS: 'TO SUM UP THE POSITION, THE TRIBUNAL IS THE APPOINTED MACHINERY UNDER THE ACT FOR FINALLY DECIDING QUESTIONS OF FACT IN RELATION TO ASSESSMENT OF INCOME - TAX. ITS COMPOSITION, CONSISTING A S IT DOES OF QUALIFIED PERSONS IN LAW AND ACCOUNTANCY, MAKES IT PECULIARLY QUALIFIED TO DEAL WITH ALL QUESTIONS RAISED IN A CASE, WHETHER THERE BE ASSISTANCE FROM THE PARTY OR HIS COUNSEL OR NOT. SEC. 33(4) OBLIGES IT TO DECIDE AN APPEAL AFTER GIVING AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO PUT FORWARD THEIR CASE. THE GIVING OF THE OPPORTUNITY ONLY EMPHASISES THE CHARACTER OF THE QUASI - JUDICIAL FUNCTION PERFORMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACT THAT THAT OPPORTUNITY IS NOT AVAILED OF IN A PARTICULAR CASE, WILL NOT ENTIT LE THE TRIBUNAL NOT TO DECIDE THE CASE. THERE CAN BE NO DECISION OF THE CASE ON ITS MERITS IF THE MATTER IS TO BE DISPOSED OF FOR DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES. FURTHER AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE IS ESSENTIAL TO ENABLE THE HIGH COURT TO PERFORM ITS STATUTORY DUTY AND FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR AN APPEAL FILED UNDER S. 66A. SEC. 33(4) ITSELF INDICATES BY THE USE OF THE WORD THEREON' THAT THE DECISION SHOULD RELATE TO THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF THE APPEAL. RULE 24, THEREFORE, TO BE CONSIS TENT WITH S. 33(4), COULD ONLY EMPOWER THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON ITS MERITS WHETHER THERE BE AN APPEARANCE OF THE PARTY BEFORE IT OR NOT. THIS WAS INDEED THE RULE WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROMULGATED IN THE YEAR 1941. THE RULE IN ITS PRESENT FORM, AS AMENDED IN THE YEAR 1948, IN SO FAR AS IT ENABLES THE DISMISSAL OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE OF THE APPELLANT, WILL, THEREFORE, BE ULTRA VIRES, AS BEING IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S. 33(4) OF THE ACT.' M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 8 9. THE TRIBU NAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING CONSIDERED THE RULE 24 & 25 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. FURTHER RULE 25 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE AMENDM ENT OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) AMENDMENT RULES, 2002 W.E.F.8 - 4 - 2002, WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE FOUND THAT AS PER THE VAKALATNAMA, APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. SARAT CHANDRA BHADRA AND SRI BIVEKANANDA MOHANTY , WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SRI SIDHARTHA RAY , ADVOCATE APPEARED AND MADE THE SUBMISSION S . WE ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE CAUSE AND REASONS AS TO WHY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL DECIDED NOT TO APPEAR IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL NOR ASSESSEE FILED ANY EXPLANATION . 1 1 . WE CONSIDERING THE OVERALL ASPECTS, LEGALITY AND THE ITAT RULES AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND DR, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER CONSIDERING THE RULE 24 & 25 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREAS THE LD. ARS SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER FOR THE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE . WE FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY REFERRED TO TWO DATES IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND IGNORED THE SUBSEQUENT DATES AND GRANTING OF ADJO URNMENT OF THE CASE , BUT WE M.A. NO. 58 /CTK/201 7 9 CONSIDERING THE HARDSHIP PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS A SPECIAL CASE UNDER THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AS PRAYED BEFO RE US BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, TO HEAR THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2017 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE OBSERVATION S AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE CASE FOR HEARING ON MERITS IN THE REGULAR COURSE AND THE PARTIES SHOULD BE INFORMED A CCORDINGLY. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05 / 07 / 201 8 . SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 05 / 07 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - M/S SREE ME TALIKS LIMITED, GURUDWAR ROAD, BARBIL, KEONJHAR 2. / THE RESPONDENT - DCIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//