Ch. Sri Hari Rao, Secunderabad V. ITO Range-8(1), Hyderabad

MA 76/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6625 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIWAKAR PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: G MURALI KRISHNA M URTHY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 76/HYD/11 (IN ITA NO.1444/HYD/10) : ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 SRI CH. HARI RAO, SECUNDERABAD. PAN: AATPC 3966 E) V/S- INCOME-TAX OFFICER, RANGE-8(1),HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G. MURALIKRISHNA MURTHY RESPONDENT BY : SRI DIWAKAR PRASAD O R D E R PER AKBER BASHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS ORDER DATED 01-02-2011. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITS APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON 1-2-201 1 ON WHICH DATE ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI G. MURALIKRISHNA MURTHY DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING BECAUSE THERE WAS A DEATH IN HIS FAMILY AND M.A.NO. 76/HYD/11 SRI CH. SRI HARI RAO, SECBAD. =============================== 2 THEREFORE NO ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT BANGALO RE AND ANOTHER PROPERTY SITUATED AT KAKINADA. FURTHER IT IS CO NTENDED THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A) WHO ALSO HAD PASSED THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT GRANTI NG AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEMISE OF THE MEMBER IN THE FAMILY, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SEEK AN ADJOURNMENT AND THIS LED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE A SERIOUS VIEW AND DECIDED THE APPEA L FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED THEREIN. HENCE, THE PETITIONER SUBMI TS THAT THERE IS NO WILLFUL DEFAULT BY THE PETITIONER IN NOT APPEARING ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 1-2-2011. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE BENCH EXCEPT FO R THE REASONS STATED IN HIS PETITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS ORDE R DATED 01- 02-2011 AND AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE IN RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CON SIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE M.A.NO. 76/HYD/11 SRI CH. SRI HARI RAO, SECBAD. =============================== 3 ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON A PPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 01-02-2011 PASSED I N ITA NO.1444/HYD/10 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPE AL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 29-8-2011. THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF SERVIN G NOTICES TO THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL M AY BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING AND NO SEPARATE NOTICES M AY BE SERVED TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3-6-2011. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (AKBER BASHA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. DATED: 3-6-2011. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. CH. KRISHNAMURTHY & CO., CAS, 133/1, PREDARGHAST ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2. ITO, RANGE-8(1), HYDERABAD. 3. 4. 5. CIT (A)-IV, HYDERABAD. CIT, AP, HYDERABAD. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. JMR* M.A.NO. 76/HYD/11 SRI CH. SRI HARI RAO, SECBAD. =============================== 4