Sidharth Bansal, MAKRANA V. ITO, MAKRANA

MA 67/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1854 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.67/JODH/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 597/JU/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SIDHARTH BANSAL, VS. I.T.O., WARD-2, PROP. M/S. RADHAKRISHNA MARBLES, MAKRANA. MAKRANA. PAN: ACAPB7786Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH OJ HA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/05/2014 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARISING OUT OF THE O RDER DATED 03/02/2011 IN ITA NO. 597/JU/2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 HAS BEEN F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN AS UNDER:- 2 DEAR SIR, WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX WAS SUBMITTE D BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH DISPATCHED ON 9.4.2011, IN THIS RESPECT IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MENTION THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH. 2 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD FEBRUARY 2011 FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD PAGE 320. IN THIS RESPECT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE WHA TSOEVER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, WHILE DECIDI NG THE APPEAL OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS A SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CO NTENTION I AM ALSO ENCLOSING HEREWITH AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM STATING FULL FACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NO TICE, THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF THE NOTICE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE THE COMPLIANCE TH EREOF. OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR NON COMPLIANCE. IT IS, THEREFORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH BY APPLYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REPORTE D IN 38 ITD PAGE 320 MAY KINDLY BE RECTIFIED/RECALL. THIS BEING A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD MAY KIND LY BE RECTIFIED. HOPE YOU WILL CONSIDER THE REQUEST. I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH CHALLAN OF RS. 50.00 ALSO BEING THE COPYING FEES. THANKING YOU. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID MISC. APPLICATION AND SUB MITTED THAT DUE TO NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR ON 02/02/2011. IT W AS REQUESTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAIN ED IN PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE R ECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 03/02/2011. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND FOUND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS D ISMISSED EX-PARTE I.E. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 3 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 03/02/2011 AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FI X THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 19/05/2014. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 05-05- 2014.) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 05 TH MAY, 2014 RANJAN/- COPY TO:- 1.THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE D.R. 6. THE GUARD FILE. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR.