M/s. Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhopal

MA 70/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1842 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ AYACHIT
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS.70 & 71/IND/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.18 & 19/IND/2013) A.YS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. VAISHALI DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS, BHOPAL PAN AACFV 7638 P ..APPELLANT V/S. DCIT-1(1), BHOPAL ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANOJ AYACHIT REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 2 . 5 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2.5 .2014 ORDER PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.6.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE DUE TO CERTAIN UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 2 2. DURING HEARING, SHRI MANOJ AYACHIT, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE COUNSEL, APPOINTED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND THE HEARING DUE TO HIS PERSONA L REASONS AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM, THE LD. CO UNSEL HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.6.2013 MAY BE RECALLED. LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE URGED THAT LENIENT VIEW MAY BE TAKEN AND THE ASSESS EE UNDERTAKES TO BE VIGILANT IN FUTURE. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR C ONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN PRESENT ON T HE APPOINTED DATE, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED, MORE SPEC IFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND CONSIDERED THE AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. UNDER T HE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUBS TANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL ON TECHNICALITIES ESPECIALLY W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THE REASONS OF NON-APPEARANCE AS NARRATE D ABOVE AND THE COUNSEL HAS ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, THEREFORE, 3 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMN ED UNHEARD, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DA TED 19.6.2013 IS RECALLED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO REFIX THE APP EALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 2.5.2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.5.2014 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE !VYS!