ITO, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. R Narasimhulu, Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 76/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3294 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘B’ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.76/Hyd/2018 (In ITA No.1088/Hyd/2016) (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri R. Narasimhulu, Hyderabad. PAN AEQPN2761R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri A.P. Babu.(D.R.) Date of Hearing : 05.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R Per R. K. Panda, A.M. : The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application requesting the Tribunal to recall the exparte order passed by it on account of non-appearance. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing when the name of the assessee was called. Perusal of the record shows that no one was appearing on behalf of the assessee since last so many occasions. The Notice sent through RPAD was also returned with the postal remark ‘No 2 M A No.76/Hyd/2018 such person in this address’. Further the M.A is also filed belatedly. We, therefore, deem it proper to decide the issue on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the learned Departmental Representative. 3. After hearing the learned Departmental Representative and on perusal of the record, we find the order of Tribunal in ITA No.1088/Hyd/2016 was dismissed on account of non-appearance. Further it was also observed by the Tribunal that there are two PAN numbers allotted to the assessee. In the assessment order one PAN is mentioned whereas another PAN is mentioned in the order of CIT (Appeals). The same was also repeated by the assessee in the grounds of appeal enclosed with the Form No.36. We further find the M.A. was filed by the assessee on 13.8.2018 and the Registry has issued defect notice stating that the said M.A. has been filed after due date u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Since the M.A. filed by the assessee is barred by limitation and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee to 3 M A No.76/Hyd/2018 substantiate that the same is within the time, we dismiss the M.A filed by the assessee being barred by limitation. 4. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (RAMA KANTA PANDA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Hyderabad, Dt. 05.08.2022. * Reddy gp Copy to : 1. Shri R. Narasimhulu, 1-13/8/10, Manikonda, Rajendra Nagar, R R District, Hyderabad. 2. ITO, Ward 8(2), Hyderabad. 3. Pr. C I T-2, Hyderabad. 4. CIT(Appeals)-2, Hyderabad. 5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 6. Guard File. By Order Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.