Smt.S.Vijayalakshmi, Kurnool V. Addl.CIT,, Kurnool

MA 66/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1847 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C R SEKHAR REDDY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 66/HYD/2014 IN ITA NO. 1117/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI KURNOOL PAN: ADNPV7677A VS. THE ADDL. CIT KURNOOL RANGE KURNOOL ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SRI C.R. SEKHAR REDDY REVENUE BY: S MT. T.H. VIJAYALAKSHMI DATE OF HEARING: 23 .0 5 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 .0 5 .2014 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) THE ASSESSE E SEEKS RECALL OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 10.3.2014 IN I TA NO. 1117/HYD/2013, WHEREIN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE ADDRESS OF HER COUNSEL FOR RECEIVING NOTI CES. THEREFORE, SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE NOTICES OF HEAR ING. FURTHER, SHE WAS NOT INFORMED BY HER COUNSEL THAT H E WOULD NOT APPEAR IN HER CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COUNSEL WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO T HE THEN COUNSEL, HE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR TO DEFEND THE ASSESSEE ON 10.3.2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT GIVING THE SAME REASONS. MA NO. 66 /HYD/2014 SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI ================== 2 3. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO SUFFERING FOR THE MISTAKE OF HER COUNS EL. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL AND PRAYED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST HER CASE ON MERIT. 4. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION FOR THE PROPOSITION OF THE AR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE PETITION AND AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN PROSECUTING HER APPEAL BEFORE T HIS TRIBUNAL. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASON ADVANCE D BY HER. ACCORDINGLY, THE EX-PARTE ORDER IN ITA NO. 11 17/ HYD/2013 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND THE APPEAL IS RESTO RED ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIB UNAL IS DIRECTED TO POST THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 3.9.2014. NO NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE SENT TO THE PARTIES AND THIS ORDER ITSELF WOULD SERVE AS A NOTICE OF HEARING ON THEM. 6. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2014. SD/ - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 23 RD MAY, 2014 TPRAO MA NO. 66 /HYD/2014 SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI ================== 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. S. VIJAYALAKSHMI, C/O. P. MURALI & CO., CHARTE RED ACCOUNTANTS, 6-3-655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD-82. 2. THE ADDL. CIT, KURNOOL 3. THE CIT(A) - IV , HYDERABAD . 4. THE CIT - III , HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR BENCH ' A ', ITAT, HYDERABAD