M/s. Srinagar Development Authority, Srinagar (J&K) V. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu

MA 60/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3979 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.60(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 444(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL PAN :AAALS2033H M/S. SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VS.THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX, SRINAGAR ( J&K). JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.UPENDER BHAT, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.K. SHARDA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/02/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012, WHEREBY TH IS BENCH HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. I.T.A. NO .444(ASR) OF 2010 DUE TO NON APPEARANCE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DUE TO CERTAIN EXTRAORDINARY URGENCY AND BEING SITU ATED AT DELHI, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FOLLOW UP THE CASE PROMPTLY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DEPUTED ONE OF HIS EMPLOYEES TO BE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BUT HE COULD NOT REACH IN TIME DUE TO TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT ANY PROCESS OF LAW BUT THE NON- APPEARANCE ON THE STIPULATED DATE HAS BEEN NECESSIT ATED BY 2 CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. ACCORDINGLY, H E PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE RECALLED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT OPPOSE TH E REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE THOROUGH LY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 2 9.11.2012. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 IS HEREBY RECALLED. THE APPEAL IS ORDERED TO BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL NU MBER AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE MAIN APPEAL, I.E., I.T.A. NO. 4 44(ASR)2010 ON 17.03.2016 FOR HEARING. NO FRESH NOTICE SHALL BE IS SUED SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENC E OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/02/201 6. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 05/02/2016 /SKR/ COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAM MU. 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR. DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.