Hareshkumar N. Prajapati, Vapi V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Vapi

MA 6/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7902 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: K N BHATT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . ! !,'# ' $ BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.6/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008) ( ! % ! % ! % ! % / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 ) SHRI HARESHKUMAR N.PRAJAPATI SHRI GANESH JALARAM SOCIETY KACHIGAM ROAD, VAPI (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) ! ! ! ! / VS. THE ITO WARD-1 VAPI (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) ' '# ./() ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACCPP 2898 K ( APPLICANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.N.BHATT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. !* + ,#/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 20/04/2012 - % + ,# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/04/2012 './ O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH JULY-2010 PASSED BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH B IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED WAS SERVED ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER 2010, THE ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH JULY 2010 BY MA NO. 6/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008) SH.HARESHKUMAR N.PRAJAPATI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 2 - THE HON.INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B IN THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT BEING ITA/458/A/2008 WHEREB Y THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT WAS DISMISSED. THE APPELLANT IS INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL, THERE WAS A SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF THE A PPELLANT. THE APPELLANT RETAINED ON MR.H.P.SHAH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND USED TO GET HIS SERVICES SINCE MANY YEARS. DURING THE TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 20 04-05 WAS TAKEN UP SHRI H.P.SHAH WAS NOT KEEPING WELL ON ACCOUNT OF PARALYTIC ATTACK AND AS A RESULT, THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO COULD NOT BE ATTENDED PROPERLY WHI CH MADE THE LD. A.O. ANNOYED AND HE PASSED THE ORDER U /S.144 AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPEAL WA S PREFERRED AND THE SAME WAS ATTENDED BY SHRI H.P.SHA H. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF HON.CIT(A), VALSAD, THE P RESENT APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH THE S AME MR.H.P.SHAH. THE APPELLANT WAS UNAWARE OF THE COUN SEL RETAINED BY SHRI H.P.SHAH TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. MEANWHILE, THE HEALTH OF MR.H.P.SHAH DETERIORATED F URTHER IMPAIRING ON PERMANENT BASIS HIS ABILITY TO PERFORM AND AS A RESULT, THE APPELLANT HAD TO RETAIN ANOTHER CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT NAMELY MR.JIGNESH VASANI. WHEN THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED FROM HON.IT AT, THE APPELLANT CONTACTED SHRI JIGNESH VASANI AND SOU GHT HIS ADVICE ABOUT THE COURSE OF ACTION. AS THE APPELLAN T WAS UNAWARE OF THE COUNSEL RETAINED BY SHRI H.P.SHAH (T HE EX- CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT), SHRI JIGNESH VASANI SUGGESTE D THAT SHRI KAMLESH BHATT SHOULD BE RETAINED TO REPRESENT THE CASE. AT THAT TIME, SHRI KAMLESH BHATT WAS NOT OF STATION AND HENCE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED THROUGH THE REG ISTRY BY HIS OFFICE. IT IS UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THERE WAS DUPLI CATION OF REPRESENTATION ONE BY LD. SHRI TUSHR HEMANI ALR EADY RETAINED BY THROUGH SHRI H.P.SHAH AND ANOTHER AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT BY THE OFFICE OF SHRI K AMLESH BHATT. IT WAS NEVER THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT WA S NEVER SERIOUS OR SINCERE ABOUT THIS APPEAL. IT IS ONLY B ECAUSE OF SUCH CHANGE, THERE WAS A MISCONCEPTION BOUT THE RETAINERSHIP. MA NO. 6/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008) SH.HARESHKUMAR N.PRAJAPATI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 3 - THE APPELLANT IS EXTREMELY SORRY FOR THIS AND OFFER S HIS SINCERE APOLOGY FOR THIS AND AT THE SAME TIME HE PR AYS THAT JUST FOR THIS HIS RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND THE MATTER BEING DECIDED ON MERIT BE NOT DEPRIVED AND HE BE NOT DENI ED THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE JUSTICE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , I THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE LENIENT VIEW BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER AND THE ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL BE RECALL ED AND THAT THE APPEAL BE DISPOSED OFF A FRESH AFTER GIVIN G THE APPELLANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSESSEES FAILURE TO APPEAR B EFORE THE ITAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BENCH B AHMEDABAD PASSED IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008 DATED 30/07 /2010 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE HEARING ON 5 TH JULY-2012 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS PER LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ! ) ( ) '# ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20 / 04 /2012 MA NO. 6/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2008) SH.HARESHKUMAR N.PRAJAPATI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2004-05 - 4 - /,..!, .!../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '. + 01 2'1% '. + 01 2'1% '. + 01 2'1% '. + 01 2'1%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '3 / THE APPLICANT. 2. 04'3 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5() / THE CIT(A)-VALSAD 5. 189 0! , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 9: ;* / GUARD FILE. '.! '.! '.! '.! / BY ORDER, 41 0 //TRUE COPY// < <<