Syed Abdul Jameel, Bengaluru V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore

MA 59/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Syed Abdul Jameel against the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation Circle-1(2), Bangalore, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The original appeal was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the assessee's representative on the scheduled hearing date, which coincided with the Diwali festival. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to recall the Tribunal's order, citing confusion over the meeting link as the reason for non-appearance. The Tribunal, referencing Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, acknowledged the misunderstanding and allowed the recall of the order, emphasizing the need to provide a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129981 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: ITAT Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Set aside

Judgement Text

MP No.174/Bang/2023 Syed Abdul Jameel, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER MP No.59/Bang/2023 IT(IT)A No.574/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syed Abdul Jameel No.19/1 S-1 KCD Complex CSI Compound Behind Unity Building Mission Road Bangalore 560 027 PAN NO : AMFPJ9371E Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax International Taxation Circle-1(2) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Balram R. Rao, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Pavan Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This MA filed by the assessee seeking recall of order of the Tribunal in IT(IT)A No.574/Bang/2022dated 27.7.2022. In this case assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal and case was fixed for final hearing on 26.10.2022. None appeared for the assessee. Hence, the Tribunal heard the ld. DR and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. MP No.174/Bang/2023 Syed Abdul Jameel, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 2. Now the ld. A.R. submitted that on the date of the hearing of the appeal, i.e. on 26.10.2022, the ld. A.R. Mr. Siddesh Gaddi, Accountant could not attend the hearing due to confusion around the meeting link i.e. the original meeting link displayed the message “The host has ended the meeting” and considering that the hearing was scheduled on the date of Diwali festival, it was assumed that the bench was not functioning. It was later learned that the new meeting link was generated. Thus, he prayed that the non-appearance before this Tribunal on the date of hearing i.e. 26.10.2022 is unwanton and unintentional and due to bonafide belief that bench was not functioned on that day. He prayed that the order of the Tribunal cited (supra) may be recalled and an opportunity of fresh hearing to be given. 3. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the case was heard on 26.10.2022. The order has been passed after hearing the ld. D.R. without participation of the assessee’s counsel. Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 indicates that wherein appeal has been disposed of on merit and the appellant appears thereafter, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and restored the appeal, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. Although in the main Rule 24, the expression used is “may”, when the read with proviso appended thereto, it leads to the conclusion that if the Tribunal chooses to dispose of the appeal on merit or otherwise, after hearing the respondent in the absence of the appellant and the appellant thereafter appears and shows sufficient cause for not appearing n the date when the appeal is disposed of, the Tribunal obliged, in law to set aside the order passed and restore the appeal. In view of this Rule 24 MP No.174/Bang/2023 Syed Abdul Jameel, Bangalore Page 3 of 4 of ITAT Rules 1963 if there is a good and sufficient reason for non-appearance on the date of hearing at the end of the appellant, the Tribunal is duty bound to recall the order of the Tribunal. In our opinion, in the present case, there was a confusion with regard to meeting link hosted by the Tribunal as it was Diwali holiday and it was misunderstood by the appellant that it was a closed holiday to Tribunal. Being so, non- appearance before the Tribunal on 26.10.2022 is bonafide. Accordingly, we find reasonable cause for not attending the hearing on the said date by the assessee’s counsel/appellant and accordingly, we recall earlier order of the Tribunal cited (supra) and fix the case for fresh hearing on 3.7.2023 and no separate notice of hearing will be given to both the parties and this order itself served as a notice of hearing to both the parties. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2 nd June, 2023 Sd/- (George George K. ) Judicial Member Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated 2 nd June, 2023. VG/SPS MP No.174/Bang/2023 Syed Abdul Jameel, Bangalore Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(Judicial) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.