M/s Panmad Footwears (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 71/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8961 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR PRABH KANT
• Assessee Lawyers: R K ADLAKHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.71/DEL/2012 (ITA NO.4807/D/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 PANMAD FOOTWEARS (P) LTD., C/O PRA TAXINDIA, D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION PART I, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAECP1104E VS. ITO, WARD 14 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R.K. ADLAKHA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR. PRABH KANT, SR. DR O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 10.05.2011, PASS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4807/DEL/2010. 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED I N LIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PUT IN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.05.2011, NOTICE FOR WHI CH WAS SENT TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36. IT WAS, IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL WAS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION THAT THE ABSENCE OF REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARI NG OF THE CAPTIONED APPEAL MA NO.71/DEL/2012 2 WAS DUE TO THE INDIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF THE ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ENGAGED FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE NOT ICE OF HEARING FOR 10.05.2012 WAS SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF THE COUNSEL. BUT, THE C OUNSEL NEITHER APPEARED FOR HEARING NOR INFORMED THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS NON-APP EARANCE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE MADE TO SUFF ER FOR THE DEFAULT OF THEIR COUNSEL. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT OF SHRI GAJEND ER KUMAR, S/O SHRI DALIP KUMAR, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE ALSO BEEN FIL ED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. 4. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VISITED WITH SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE A PPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE SAID EX PARTE ORDER. THE CASE IS NOW FIXED FOR HEA RING ON MERIT ON 16.01.2013. NO FRESH NOTICE SHALL ISSUE AS THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.08.20 12. SD/- SD/- [G.D. AGRAWAL] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 31.08.2012. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES