M/s Pan India Druges & Cemical Ltd, Indore V. The A C I T 1 (1), Indore

MA 78/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8698 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAV SAXENA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 78/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 131/IND/2009) A.Y.2003-04 M/S PAN INDIA DRUGS & CHEMICALS LTD. INDORE PAN AABCP 0242K :: APPLICANT VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(2) INDORE :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI MAHESH AGRAWAL AND SHRI MANOJ GUPTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI KESHAV SAXENA DATE OF HEARING 6.7.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 .7.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE A CT IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD MAY, 2010 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 2 FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS THE COUNSEL COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE APPOINTED DATE AS THE PREMISES ON WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT WAS LOCKED AND TAKEN OVER BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTITON S. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SHRI MANOJ GUPTA AND SHRI MAHESH AGRAWAL, REQUESTED THAT THOU GH THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS WHIC H WAS FURNISHED IN FORM NO. 36 COLUMN 10. HOWEVER, WHILE PREPARING THE APPEAL, THE COUNSEL INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THE ADDRESS OF THE FACTORY WHICH IS LOCKED SINCE LONG BACK AND POS SESSION OF THE PREMISES WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIO NS WHOSE DEBTS WERE OVER-DUE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT IN SUPP ORT OF ITS CLAIM. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT IF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT RECALLED, GREAT INJUSTICE WILL BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT DR, SHRI KESHAV SAXENA, SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED. 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 3 ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DULY SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MENTIONING THAT THE PREMISES WAS T AK EN OVER BY THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. THE NOTICE WAS RECE IVED UNSERVED. NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, THEREFORE, T HE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 3 RD MAY, 2010 IS RECALLED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012. SINCE THIS DATE WAS DULY PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT AND NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, NO S EPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WILL BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 6.7.2012. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 6.7.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/- 4