Sh. Tarsem Singla, Ludhiana V. CIT, Ludhiana

MA 82/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9946 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 82/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO. 263/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI TARSEM SINGLA,, V CIT(CENTRAL), S/O SHRI JAGDISH RAI SINGLA, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI JASPAL SHARMA & SATISH GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 01.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2013 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE APPELLANT FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, DATE D 17.08.2012, ARISING OUT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 263/CH D/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AGAINST THE ORDER, DAT ED 24.4.2012, PASSED BY THE BENCH. 2. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'AR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTIONS MADE IN THE IMPU GNED M.A. THE LD. 'DR' DID NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION IN THE MATTER, AS THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED FOR NON-PRO SECUTION OF THE APPEAL BY THE APPELLANT. 2 3. THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT, TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPRECIATING THE SAME . 1. THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(CENTRAL) LUDHIANA DATED 31.01.2012 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, WA S FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHANDIGARH TRIBUNAL, BEN CH 'B' ON 23.4.2012. 2. THAT THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24.4.2012 FOR NON PROSECUTION. 3. THAT IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S COUNSEL, SH.SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE, SENT AN APPLICATIO N DATED 12.4.2012 REQUESTING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT FOR THE ABO VE SAID APPEAL BY REGISTERED SPEED POST. COPY OF APPLICATIO N SEEKING ADJOURNMENT BY APPLICANT'S COUNSEL, IS ATTACHED HER EWITH. 4. THAT ON THE SAME DATE I.E.12.4.2012 THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL ALSO SENT APPLICATIONS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT THROUGH THE SAME REGD. SPEED POST ENVELOPE, IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSEE: I) DCIT VS. M/S SINGLA ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS (P)LTD.LUDHIANA IN ITA NOS. 66 & 67/CHD/2012 FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17.4.2012 BEFORE HON'BLE 'B' BENCH WHICH WERE ADJOURNED TO 12.6.2012 AND FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 30.7.2012. II) DCIT VS. TARSEM SINGLA,LUDHIANA, ITA NOS. 68 & 69/CHD/12 & CO 11/12 FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.4.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH 'B' WHICH WERE ADJOURNED TO 12. 6.2012 AND FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 30.7.2012. AN AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL, SH.SATISH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE, ADMITTING THE ABOVE FACTS, IS ALSO ATTACHED. 5. THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICATION SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT IN ITA NO.263/CHANDI/2012 FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.4.2012 COULD NOT BE PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING INADVERTENTLY AND THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF H EARING OF THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL 6. THAT THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID APPEAL SHALL BE ADJOURNED AFTER CONSIDERING THE APP LICATION DATED 12.4.2012 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE 'S COUNSEL AS THE APPEALS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE'S OTHER CONCER N M/S SINGLA ENCLAVE DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.LUDHIANA FIXED FOR HEARI NG ON 17.4.2012 STOOD ALREADY ADJOURNED FOR 12.6.2012. 7. THAT THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION IN NOT ATTENDING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 23.4.2012. 3 8. THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS PR AYED THAT THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL BEARING IT A NO.263/CHANDI/2012 MAY KINDLY BE RECAL LED IN THE INTEREST NATURAL JUSTICE AS THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CA USE FOR NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALL ED FOR HEARING. 3(I). IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON ACC OUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE APPE LLANT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE AND JUSTIFICATIONS OR REASONS FOR NON-PROSECUTION O F THE APPEAL, IN THE SAID M.A. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE SCUTTLED, AT THE THRESHOLD ST AGE, OVER TECHNICALITIES. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AND TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PLAUSIBLE AND, HENCE, ACCEPTED, WITH A VIEW TO RENDER SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, IN THE CASE. 4. MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE HEARING OF THE CASE IS FIXED FOR 04 .04.2013. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH FEB.,2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 6 TH FEB.,2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH.