M/S RAMA HANDICRAFTS, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

MA 7/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2332 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR

Judgement Text

MA 7/JP/2014 M/S. RAMA HANDICRAFTS VS. ACIT CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) M.A. NO.7/JP/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 658/JP/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 PAN: AACFR 2488 P M/S. RAMA HANDICRAFTS VS. THE ACIT NAGARGAH ROAD CIRCLE- 4 JAIPUR JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAJESH OJHA DATE OF HEARING: 12-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19-09-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N U/S 254 (2) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 09-10-2 013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CONTENDING THAT FOLLOWING MISTAKE HAS ARISEN IN THE ITAT ORDER. THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL HAVE BEEN DECIDED EX- PARTE BY THE HON'BLE BENCH VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 9-10-2013. THE ORDER WAS PASSED EX-PARTE AS OUR COUNSEL MR. S. L. PODDAR COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING DUE TO CALL OF BAR ASS OCIATION AND THE CASE WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. MA 7/JP/2014 M/S. RAMA HANDICRAFTS VS. ACIT CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 2 THERE WAS NO MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING BECAUSE OF CALL OF BAR ASSOCIATION. THEREFORE, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO RESTOR E THE APPEAL AND OBLIGE. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THIS WAS THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESS EE'S COUNSEL SHRI S.L. PODDAR FROM TIME TO TIME AND ON THE APPOINTED DATE I.E. 29-08-2013 NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WA S DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD . DR AND IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL WAS SET ASIDE BY THIS BENCH OF ITAT TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 2.2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN A FFIDAVIT FROM THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION W HICH ONLY GIVES VAGUE REASON THAT SHRI S.L. PODDAR COULD NOT ATTEND HEARI NG DUE TO CALL OF BAR ASSOCIATION. NEITHER THE DETAILS OF NATURE OF CALL NOR THE DATES OF THE STRIKE AND AT THE SAME TIME NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PUT ON RE CORD IN THIS BEHALF. THE AFFIDAVIT IS SWORN BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CO UNSEL. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING DEVOID OF ANY COGEN T REASONS IS DISMISSED.