Jaswinder Kaur, Mohali V. ITO, W-6(2), Mohali

MA 60/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0023 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 274; 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # , $ % & ' ( , )* # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM M.A. 60/CHD/2020 IN I.T.A. NO. 1102/CHD/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 23.12.2020 / D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2020 )+/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1962 WHEREIN PRAYER FOR RECALL OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 28.05 .2019 IN ITA 1102/CHD/2018 PERTAINING TO 2015-16 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS MADE. 2. THE LD. AR RELYING UPON THE APPLICATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTI CE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING. IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED B Y HIM THAT IN THE FORM NO. 36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHEREIN INSTEAD OF HOUSE NO. 23 76, THE SMT. JASWINDER KAUR, # 2212, PHASE 7, MOHALI. PAN AGGPK8432N VS THE ITO, WARD 6(2), MOHALI. !' / APPELLANT #$%!' / RESPONDENT MA-60/CHD/2020 IN ITA 1102/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE 2 OF 3 HOUSE NUMBER ERRONEOUSLY WAS MENTIONED AS 2736. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, INFACT THE ASSESSEE H AD SHIFTED TO HOUSE NO. 2212, PHASE 7, MOHALI WHICH MAY NOW BE TAKEN AS THE CORRECT ADDRESS. ACCORDINGLY, CONFINING HIMS ELF TO THE PRAYER, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE INADVERTE NT TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, THE AFORESAID ORD ER MAY BE RECALLED AND AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD MAY BE G RANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. SR.DR MS. VOHRA ON CONSIDERING THE RECOR D HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE SAID REQUEST. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRAYER OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AN D EXERCISING THE POWERS AS VESTED IN US BY PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 28.05.201 9 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS RECALLED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL HOUSIN G CONSTRUCTION LTD. 274 ITR 131 (DEL). WHILE SO DOIN G IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REG ISTRY IN THE FILING OF THE APPEAL ORIGINALLY MAY BE CURED. IN TE RMS OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION, THE APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING O N 17.02.2021. ISSUANCE OF NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE IS DISPENS ED WITH IN MA-60/CHD/2020 IN ITA 1102/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE 3 OF 3 VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE VIRTUAL COURT VIA WEBEX IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AT T HE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AT THE TI ME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEES IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 RD DECEMBER,2020. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & ' ( ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) )* #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER & ' () #* + ,+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !'/ THE APPELLANT - 2. #$%!'/ THE RESPONDENT - 3. (% (% -/ CIT 4. (% (% - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +01% #2, (% % (2 , 45617/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 16 8 / GUARD FILE () / BY ORDER, 9% : / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR