Coronation Flour Mills, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad

MA 7/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9768 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEEN A, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S CORONATION FLOUR MILLS, NEAR KAUSAMBI FLAT, NEAR SURVIDHA SHOPPING CENTRE, PALDI, AHMEDABAD PAN AABFC 4095 J (APPELLANT) VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SRI Y.P. VERMA SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SRI TUSHAR HEMANI, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-01-2013 / ORDER PER : T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE APPELLANT FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/04/2011 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT C BEN CH, AHMEDABAD IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1984-85 . THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- M.A. NO. 07 /AHD/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2350/A/2009) A.Y.:-1984-85 M.A. NO. 07/AHD/2012 A.Y. 1984-85 PAGE NO M/S CORONATION FLOUR MILLS VS. ITO 2 1. THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPELLAN T ABOVE NAMED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/04/2011 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPEL LANT EX- PARTE FOR NON-PROSECUTION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ADVOCA TE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE ABOVE STATED ORDER O BSERVED THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT FRESH NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HOWEVER, THE NOTICE R ETURNED UNSERVED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ON THAT ADDR ESS. THE HON,BLE TRIBUNAL ON THIS GROUND DISMISSED THE APPEA L. THE HON'BLE ITAT DECIDED THE CAPTIONED APPEAL EX-PARTE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPLICANT. 3. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE RE WAS A CHANGE IN THE ADDRESS OF THE APPLICANT AND DUE TO OVERSIGH T THE NEW ADDRESS WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO THE HONBLE TRIBUNA L. THE APPLICANT ON INQUIRING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE APPE AL FROM THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE DISMISSAL O F THE APPEAL CX-PARTE. THE APPLICANT OBTAINED A COPY OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLC TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEA L FROM THE REGISTRY OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON 11/01/2012. 4. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE APPLICANT SHIFTED ITS OFFICE PENDING THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL. INADVERTENTLY THE CHANGE IN COMMUNICATION ADDRESS WAS NOT INTIMATED TO THE REGISTRY. THEREFORE THE AP PLICANT WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 19/ 04/2011. NO NOTICE OR ANY COMMUNICATION FIXING THE DATE OF HEAR ING OF THE APPEAL ON 19/04/2011 COULD BE COMMUNICATED TO THE A PPLICANT. UNDER THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE APPLICANT NOR HIS REPRESENTATI VE COULD PRESENT AND CONDUCT THE MATTER. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS DONE IN ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT AND/OR HIS REPRESE NTATIVE. PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE THUS VIOLATED. M.A. NO. 07/AHD/2012 A.Y. 1984-85 PAGE NO M/S CORONATION FLOUR MILLS VS. ITO 3 5. THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOW PROVIDED THE NEW ADDRESS AND HAS ALSO FILED REV ISED FORM NO.36 WITH CHANGED ADDRESS. THE APPLICANT RESPECTFU LLY SUBMITS THAT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL COULD NOT BE ATTENDE D FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE. THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO PUT FORTH THE SUBMISSION AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS. THE EX- PARTE DECIS ION PASSED IN THE APPEAL BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WOULD CAUSE G RAVE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE APPLICANT. 6. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE EX PARTE ORDER DECIDING THE APPEA L MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE RE-FIXED F OR HEARING TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPLICA NT TO REPRESENT ITS CASE. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BE PLEASED TO ACCEPT THE PRAYER OF THE APPLICANT AND HEAR THE MATTER. 2. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, THE DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT INFORMED TO THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT CHANGE OF ADDRESS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED REVISED FORM NO. 36 WITH CHANGE OF ADDRESS ON WHICH NOTICES ARE BEING SENT BY ITAT. EARLIER T HE NOTICES WERE SENT AT OLD ADDRESS WHICH WERE NOT SERVED PROPERLY TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, CO- ORDINATE C BENCH HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL BY APPL YING THE DECISION OF ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN LIMINE. THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RECALL THE DECISION OF CO-OR DIANTE C BENCH, AHMEDABAD DATED 19/04/2011 IN CASE OF ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASE IS FIXED FOR 12-03-2013 AND BOTH THE PARITIES HAVE BE EN INFORMED IN COURT. NO M.A. NO. 07/AHD/2012 A.Y. 1984-85 PAGE NO M/S CORONATION FLOUR MILLS VS. ITO 4 SEPARATE NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE REG ISTRY. ACCORDINGLY, THE M.A. IS ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (T.R. MEE NA) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 04 /01/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '#