Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8902 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
09-07-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
30-06-2017
Judgement Text
, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !, ' # $ , $ % & ' ( ) , *+ # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM M.A. NO. 86/CHD/2017 IN ITA NO. 17/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 TDS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD., SCF 81, PHASE-6, MOHALI. VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE VI(1), MOHALI. ./ PAN NO. : AACCT5653K / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / : ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARVIND BALONI / : REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR ! ' / DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2019 #$%& ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2019 *,/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR RECALL OF THE O RDER DATED 27.04.2017 IN ITA NO. 17/CHD/2017 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-REPRESENTATION. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE REVISED MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION SUBMITTED THAT ON THE SPECIFIC DATE OF HEARING I.E. 06.04.2017 THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEE MR. MADAN KOUNDAL HAD BEEN SENT ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION FOR SEEKING TIME. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE MR. MADAN KOUNDAL APPEARED AT THE ITAT LATE AND HENCE, DID NOT FILE THE APPLICATION A VAILABLE WHICH HE WAS ENTRUSTED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE REMAI NING IN IGNORANCE OF THIS FACT BELIEVED THAT THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. ON ACCOUNT OF THIS MISTAKEN BELIEF, THE ORIGINAL APPLI CATION HAD BEEN FILED. ON BEING INTIMATED BY THE COURT THAT THERE WAS NO APPL ICATION ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENQUIRED FROM THE ACCOUNTANT AND FILE D REVISED APPLICATION M.A.86/CHD/2017 IN ITA 17/CHD/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 CONSEQUENTLY. AFFIDAVIT OF THE SAID EMPLOYEE MR. MA DAN KOUNDAL, ACCOUNTANT EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REFERRED TO. ON THE B ASIS OF THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE MISTAKE OF RE MAINING UNREPRESENTED OCCURRED FOR REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSE SSEE AND FOR THE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEE, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE PR EJUDICED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND T HE APPEAL MAY BE FIXED FOR HEARING ON MERITS. 3. THE CIT-DR SHRI MANIJIT SINGH CONSIDERING THE RE VISED APPLICATION FILED AND THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE RECALL OF THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL WA S DISMISSED ON THE GROUNDS OF LACK OF REPRESENTATION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARGUED, WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, EXERCISING THE POWERS AS VESTED IN US BY PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963, THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2017 IS RECA LLED. SUPPORT IS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS ANSAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION LTD. 274 ITR 131 (DEL). REGIS TRY, ACCORDINGLY, IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS ON 14.08.2019. FOR THE SAID DATE, NO SPECIFIC NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE PAR TIES AS THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AT THE TIM E OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.07.2019. SD/- SD/- ( % & ' ( ) ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) *+ #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM $( )* +* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. , / CIT 4. , ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. *-. / , ' / , 012.3 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. .2 4! / GUARD FILE $( / BY ORDER, 5 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Mehul