M/s. Pennar Aluminium Company Ltd., Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

MA 89/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9019 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M H NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S AKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NOS.89/HYD/2012 (IN ITA NO.990/HYD/2011) : ASST. YEAR: 1995-96 M/S. PENNAR ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD., HYDERABAD. (PAN AABCP 8988 Q) V/S- A CIT, CIR - 2(3), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI. V. RAGHAVENDRA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SRI M.H. NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 24-08-2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 -08-2012 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ITS ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.990/HYD/2011 DATED 2 ND APRIL, 2012 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT APPEAL RECORDS COULD NOT BE FORWA RDED TO THE COUNSEL AS HIS OFFICE WAS UNDER PROCESS OF SHIFTING FROM 909A, RAG HAVA RATNA TOWERS TO THE PRESENT LOCATION IN ANANDNAGAR, KHAIRATABAD AND HE COULD NOT ALSO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNSEL WAS IN DEED PRESENT IN THE COURT ON THAT DAY AND OBTAINED ADJOURNMENTS IN TWO OTHER CAS ES. THE FAILURE TO TAKE ADJOURNMENT IN THIS CASE OCCURRED BY OVERSIGHT AND INADVERTENCE, BUT NOT INTENTIONALLY OR WITH ANY DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE, THERE WAS A LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APP EAL FILED BY IT BEFORE THE M.A.NO.89 OF 2012 M/S PENNAR ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. ======================= 2 TRIBUNAL. THE NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES REP RESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING ON 2-4-2012 WAS FO R THE REASONS OF INADVERTENT OMISSION AS STATED IN ITS PETITION AND NOT DUE TO LACK OF INTEREST IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND NOT AGREED WITH THE RECALLING OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PR EVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF H EARING OF THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, WE RECAL L OUR ORDER DATED 2-4-2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.990/HYD/2011 AND DIRECT THE R EGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING ON 10-12-2012. THERE I S NO NECESSITY OF SERVING NOTICES TO THE PARTIES IN THIS REGARD. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING AND NO SEPARATE N OTICES MAY BE SERVED TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24-08-2012. SD/ - CHANDRA POOJARI SD/- SAKTIJIT DEY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24-08-2012. M.A.NO.89 OF 2012 M/S PENNAR ALUMINIUM COMPANY LTD. ======================= 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. C/O M/S. RAM BABU & CO., CAS, 31, PANCOM CHAMBER, R B ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD JMR*