Jaiveer Singh Sandhu, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 67/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5683 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.67/CHD/2016 IN ITA NO. 618/CHD/2016 ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI JAIVEER SINGH SANDHU, VS THE ITO 49, MODEL GRAM, WARD V(2), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: BPOPS0340K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY BAJAJ RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.07.2017 ORDER BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PRAYER FOR RECALL OF EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 IN ITA 61 8/CHD/2016 IS REQUESTED. IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER, THE LD. AR PRESENT IN THE CO URT SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAD BEE N PLACED ON RECORD ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS UNWELL. HOWEVER, IT PROBABLY WAS RECEI VED LATE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WIT HOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 2. NO-ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. TH E RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT EVEN ON THE LAST OCCASION, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE REVENUE AND TODAY, NEITHER ANYONE IS PRESENT NOR REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THAT THE ISSUES ARISING IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CA N BE DECIDED WITHOUT HEARING THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE FOR THE RE VENUE RESPONDENT ON MERIT. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE LD. AR WHOSE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ON RECORD, MOVED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SEEKING TIME ON HEALTH REASONS. HOWEVE R, THE SAID APPLICATION WAS MA /67/CHD/2016 IN ITA 618/CHD/2016 2 RECEIVED ON 05.07.2016 AND THE EX-PARTE ORDER ALREA DY STOOD PRONOUNCED ON 04.07.2016. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FAC TS, THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING IS ACCEPTED AS BONAFIDE AND TRUE AND NOTING THAT NO VESTED RIGHT ARISES FROM TH E EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 04.07.2016 IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS RECALL ED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ANSALS PROPERTIES. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS RESTORED BACK TO ORIG INAL POSITION AND THE DATE OF HEARING WHICH HAD BEEN FIXED AS 06.06.2017 IS NOW C HANGED TO 2 ND AUGUST,2017. PARTIES TO BE INFORMED BY THE REGISTRY. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH JULY,2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.