Shantilal Meghraj Kothari, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 77/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5690 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P UTTAMCHAND JAIN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI ... , !',$ %& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' / M.P. NO.77/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.812/MDS/2016) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SHANTILAL MEGHRAJ KOTHARI, NO.664, T.H. ROAD, TONDIARPET, CHENNAI - 600 081. PAN : AADPK 8673 Q V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE VII, CHENNAI. (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI P. UTTAMCHAND JAIN, CA +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 2 0 3$ / DATE OF HEARING : 28.07.2017 4!) 0 3$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.07.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 27.07.2016. 2. SHRI P. UTTAMCHAND JAIN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS POSTED ON 0 7.06.2016 INITIALLY AND IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.06.2016. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. 2 M.P. NO.77/MDS/17 REPRESENTATIVE, ON 16.06.2016, THE BENCH DID NOT FU NCTION, THEREFORE, IT WAS REPOSTED TO 27.07.2016. THE ASSE SSEE, IN FACT, RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON 27.07.2016. HOWE VER, HE MISPLACED THE SAME AND HE COULD NOT INFORM THE DATE OF HEARING TO HIS REPRESENTATIVE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL TO ARGUE THE CASE ON MERIT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS NO REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NO T APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 27.07.2016 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED ON 07 .06.2016 AND IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.06.2016. ON 16.06.2016, THE BE NCH DID NOT FUNCTION. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS REPOSTED TO 27 .07.2016 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY R PAD. THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECE IVED BY HIM. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT INSTRUCT HIS CHARTERED ACCOUN TANT TO APPEAR 3 M.P. NO.77/MDS/17 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, NEITHER THE ASSESS EE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE COULD APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 27.07.2016 WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. 5. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE OBJECT OF INCOME-TAX ACT IS TO QUANTIFY THE CORRECT TAXABLE I NCOME AND LEVY TAX THEREON. EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOT ICE OF HEARING, FROM THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, IT A PPEARS THAT DUE TO INDIFFERENT HEALTH, HE COULD NOT PASS ON THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 27.07.2016. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER CONFERRED ON TH IS TRIBUNAL UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNA L) RULES, 1963, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.812/MDS/201 6 DATED 27.07.2016 IS RECALLED INSOFAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO .812/MDS/2016 ALONE STANDS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL IN I .T.A. NO.812/MDS/2016 FOR FINAL DISPOSAL ON 04.10.2017. SINCE THE DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO SEPARATE NOTIC E OF HEARING NEEDS TO BE ISSUED. IN OTHER WORDS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL SERVE 4 M.P. NO.77/MDS/17 AS NOTICE OF HEARING ON 04.10.2017. IT IS MADE CLE AR THAT THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF OTHER APPEALS SHALL REMAIN AS SUCH. 7. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !' ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 28 TH JULY, 2017. KRI. 0 +37' 8')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 93 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 93 /CIT 5. ': +3 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.