G J Multicalve (India) Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 84/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5418 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G G PRABHAKARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 84/HYD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 448/HYD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. G.J. MULTICLAVE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD [PAN: AABCG0954H] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI G.G. PRABHAKARAN, AR FOR REVENUE : SMT U. MINICHANDRAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-02-2017 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 03-08-2016 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 2. IN THIS APPLICATION, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY IS SEEKING FOR RECALL OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION B Y STATING AS UNDER: M.A. NO. 84/HYD/2016 :- 2 - : 1.. 2. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER DID NOT RECEIVE ANY HEARING NOTICES OR THE APPELLATE OR DER DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE DOOR NUMBER IN THE ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER, WHICH WAS ENTIRELY CAUSED BY THE PETITIONER WHILE PREPARING THE APPEAL DOCUME NTS. THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT COLUMN FOR 'APPELLANT' AN D 'ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES MAY BE SENT TO THE APPELLANT' IN FORM NO. 3 6 WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS '7-1-474/1/A, DHARAM KARAN ROAD, AMEER PET, HYDERABAD - 16 AS AGAINST THE CORRECT DOOR NO. OF '7-1-47/1/ A, DHARAM KARAM ROAD, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD - 16 ALTHOUGH, THE PETITIONER C OMMITTED A SIMILAR MISTAKE IN THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BEFORE THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, [WHICH WAS PREPARED BY SHRLG.PULLA R EDDY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS], THIS ERROR DID NOT CAUSE ANY DIFFICUL TY IN RECEIVING THE NOTICES OR ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ), SINCE IN FORM 35, AGAINST COLUMN FOR 'ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES MAY BE SENT TO THE APPELLANT' THE ADDRESS GIVEN WAS THAT OF SHRI G. PU LLA REDDY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. 3. APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS FILED, M/S.PRATAPKARAN PAUL & CO, CHARTERED ACC OUNTANTS, CHENNAI, WHOSE OFFICE STAFF MS.EAGARNMAI, WITHOUT REALIZING THE EXISTING MISTAKE IN FORM 35, COPIED THE WRONG DOOR NUMBER THERE FROM, I N FORM 36, RESULTING IN NON DELIVERY OF THE NOTICE INTIMATING POSTING OF THE CASE FOR HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE 'B' BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD, TO THE PETITIONER. 4. THE PETITIONER REALIZED THE MISTAKE ONLY ON 15-1 1-2016, WHEN THE MANGER OF THE PETITIONER WENT TO FILE ANOTHER APPEA L BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR A DIFFERENT ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13. AT THAT TIME, THE MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER HAD ENQ UIRED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, SINCE TH E PETITIONER TILL THEN HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY ORDER FROM THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER LEARNED THA T THE APPEAL WAS ALREADY DECIDED AND THAT, BOTH HEARING NOTICES AND ORDER WHICH WERE SENT TO PETITIONER WERE RETURNED UNSERVED STATING THAT T HE ADDRESS WAS INCORRECT. 5. THE PETITIONER IMMEDIATELY DOWNLOADED A COPY OF THE ORDER FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL AND AS ADVISED BY SHRI PRATAPKARAN PAUL, CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT, IS NOW FILING THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONORABLE 'B' BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL HYDERABAD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND PRAYING FOR RESTORATION O F THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING. IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PETIT IONER AND / OR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT APPEAR FOR THE HEARING FOR NON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE FOR HEARING AND WERE UNDER THE GENUIN E BELIEF THAT THE CASE WAS YET TO BE POSTED FOR HEARING. THE PETITIONER PR AYS FOR A VERY SYMPATHETIC CONSIDERATION OF THEIR CASE, SINCE THE DEFAULT WAS CAUSED M.A. NO. 84/HYD/2016 :- 3 - : INADVERTENTLY ON ACCOUNT OF A CLERICAL MISTAKE PERP ETUATED BY AN AUDIT STAFF OF THE APPELLANT'S CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. THO UGH THE MISTAKE COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED WITH GREATER DILIGENCE, THE PETIT IONER SUBMITS THAT, IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND PRAYS FOR CONDONING THE INADV ERTENT MISTAKE. THE PETITIONER ASSURES IT WILL TAKE UTMOST CARE IN FUTU RE NOT TO REPEAT SUCH MISTAKES AND EXTEND ITS FULL COOPERATION IN EARLY D ISPOSAL OF THE RECALLED APPEAL. THE PETITIONER ONCE AGAIN PRAYS FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL. 3. TAKING THE ABOVE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND AFT ER HEARING THE PARTIES, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTION ABOUT THE REASON FOR NON-ATTENDANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WE H EREBY RECALL THE ORDER DATED 03-08-2016 AND FIX THE APPEAL FOR FR ESH HEARING ON 11-05-2017. AS THE DATE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO FRESH NOTICE NEED BE GIVEN TO THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED 17 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 TNMM M.A. NO. 84/HYD/2016 :- 4 - : COPY TO : 1. M/S. G.J. MULTICLAVE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, 7- 1-47/1/A, DHARAM KARAM ROAD, AMEER PET, HYDERABAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-2, HYDERABAD. 4. PR.CIT-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE.