Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 65/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3173 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! '# , $ %& BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NOS. 64 TO 66/MDS/2015 (IN ITA NO. 2267, 2268 & 2269/MDS/2014) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2012-13 M/S. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., BLOCK B, NEW NO.53 (OLD NO.31), DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN AAACN9369E . ( / APPLICANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS CIRCLE-II, CHENNAI 34. (/ RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.B.KOLI, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2015 ' / O R D E R PER BENCH BY THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, THE ASSESSEE S EEK RECALL OF THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.4.2015. 2. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE FIRST DATE OF H ARING DATED 11.12.2014, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT - - MA 64 TO 66/15 2 ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 7.4.2015. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALL ED FOR HEARING ON 7.4.2015, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE, WHO WAS PRESENT IN THE TRIBUNAL HELD UP BEFORE THE OTHER BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND COULD NOT REPRESENT THE CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON, BUT DUE TO THE ABOVE REASON, WH ICH MAY BE CONDONED AND THE ORDER BE RECALLED AND POSTED FOR H EARING. THE LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG WAS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR WANTON AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT TO CONDONE THE NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 7.4.2015 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 4.11.2015 AND NO FRESH NOTICE OF H EARING WOULD BE SERVED ON BOTH THE PARTIES. THIS ORDER ITSELF W ILL SERVE AS NOTICE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. - - MA 64 TO 66/15 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 31 ST OF JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) ( '#$ % & ) (V.DURGA RAO) (CHANDRA POOJARI) 8 9 /JUDICIAL MEMBER : 9/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ':8 /CHENNAI, B # /DATED, THE 31 ST JULY, 2015. MPO* C :D EF G:F /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. C C H ( ) /CIT(A) 4. C C H /CIT 5. FI! J /DR 6. !K L /GF.