Pawan Kumar Goel, Ludhiana V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana

MA 7/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5608 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.7/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO.205/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI PAWAN KUMAR GOEL, VS. THE ACIT, 259, INDUSTRIAL AREA-A, CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABGPG2298F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L DATED 23.11.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2, WHIC H WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT THE NON- ATTENDANCE/NON COMPLIANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WA S ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT SHRI S.R. CHHABRA, ADVOCAT E WHO USED TO REPRESENT THE APPEALS OF THE APPLICANT FELL SICK AND BECAUSE OF HIS ILL HEALTH HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND THE OFFICE SINCE QUITE SOME TIME. 3. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE HAD NEVER BEEN A DEFAULTER AND HAD ALWAYS BEEN ATTENDING THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PERSONALLY NOT AWARE OF FIXATION OF ANY DATE AND HE WAS 2 UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE ATTENDED TO BY THE COUNSEL. AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASS ESSEE STATING THE ABOVE FACTS WAS FILED BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVE NTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING TO PROSECUTE THE A PPEAL. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT TO MEET THE EN DS OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. EXERCISING THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, TO SET ASIDE AN EX-PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL IN CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE DEMONS TRATES REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE, AND CONSIDERIN G THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER FOR FRESH HEARING, WHICH WE HEREBY DO. THE REGISTRY IS DIRE CTED TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 28.3.2018, WHICH W AS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. NO SEPARATE NOTICE BE ISS UED TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2017 *RATI* 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4