Shri Ramnikbhai R. Gondalia, Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

MA 7/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7615 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K M BHAT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , . .. . . .. . , . ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # # # # IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHA N ALANKAMONY, A.M.) $$ $$ $$ $$ ! ! ! ! (M.A.) NO.07/AHD/2011 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1370/AHD./2010) SHRI RAMNIKBHAI R. GONDALIA, SURAT .... ( / APPLICANT) -VS- PAN: ABTPG 2071P A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-5, SURAT ( %&' / RESPONDENT) ( ) /APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.M.BHAT, A.R. %&' ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. *!+ ( ,' / DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2012 - . ( ,' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2012 / / / / / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION SEEKING RECALLING OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.12.2010 IN ITA NO.1370/AHD/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 SIX. 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE HIS M.A. DATED 11.01.2011, HA S STATED AS UNDER: THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED WAS SERVED ON 27 TH DECEMBER 2010, THE ORDER PASSED ON 10 TH DECEMBER 2010 BY THE HON. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH 'D' IN THE APPEAL OF THE A PPLICANT BEING ITA/1370/A/2010 WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT WAS DISMISSED. 2 M.A.NO. 07-AHD-2011 THE APPELLANT PREFERRED THE ABOVE APPEAL BEFORE HON . ITAT AHMEDABAD AND THAT THE WHILE DISPOSING OF THE SAID APPEAL, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE IS SERVED, HOWEVER ON T HE DATE OP HEARING NOBODY APEPARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VERY SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL' THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON 05 N NOVEMBER, 2010. THE APPEAL IN QUESTION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. ON ACCOUNT OF DIWALI VACATION, THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT Y. B. DESAI AND CO.'S OFFICE WAS CLOSED AND THE APPELLAN T COULD CONTACT THEM ON15 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. INADVERTENTLY, CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT SHRI KAMLESH N. BHATT WHO REPRESENTS ME BEFORE YOUR HONOUR WAS OUT OF INDIA FROM 13 TH NOVEMBER 2010 (SATURDAY) TO 21ST NOVEMBER 2001(SUNDAY) AND WAS BACK TO OFFICE ON 22 ND NOVEMBER 2010. (XEROX COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF HIS PASSPORT IS ATTACHE D) IT IS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT, NOBODY COU LD APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THUS, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, THE APPELL ANT WAS PREVENTED FROM PURSUING THE APPEAL BY THE REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , I THE APPELLANT MOST HUMBLY PRAY THAT THE LENIENT VIEW BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER AND THE ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL BE RECALLED AND THAT THE APPEAL BE DISPOSED OFF A FRESH AFTER GIVING THE APPELLANT A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE APPELLANT HEREIN AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL FOREVER REMAIN GRATEFUL AND PRAY . 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 3 M.A.NO. 07-AHD-2011 10.12.2010 MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED. ON THE OTHER HAN D, THE LD. D.R. DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. 4. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED. IT IS PERTINE NT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M ULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. ( SUPRA ). KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF THIS ORDER IS RECALLED . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE ON 24.04.2012. SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING IN THE COUR T, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SERVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 0 / ( - . 1!2 03 / 02 /201 2 3 ( + 4 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 03/02/2012 / / / / ( (( ( %,$ %,$ %,$ %,$ 6$.,2 6$.,2 6$.,2 6$.,2- -- - 1. &' 2. %&' 3. , *; 4. *;- - 5. $> %,!, , 4 6. A0 / , B/ D , 4 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S. 4 M.A.NO. 07-AHD-2011