Elite Crumb Industries, Dakshina Kannada V. Commissioner of Income tax, Mangalore

MA 9/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2737 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DHIVAHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VANAJA

Judgement Text

1 M.P. NO. 9 /BANG/201 5 IN THE IN C O M E T A X A P P E LL A TE T R IBU N A L B A NG AL ORE B E N C H A B E FORE S MT. P. MADHAVI DEVI , J UDI C I A L M EM B E R A ND SH R I JA SON P . B O A Z , A CC OUNT A NT M E M B E R M.P. NO. 9 /BANG/201 5 (IN ITA . NO. 45 /BANG/201 1 ) (A SS E S S MENT Y E A R : 20 06 - 07 ) M/S. ELITE CRUMB INDUSTRIES, D.NO .1 - 154, UNNUKALLINGAL BUILDING, NELLYADI, PUTTUR, D.K. V S . COMMISSIONER OF IN C OME T A X, M A N GA L O R E . PETITIONER A PP E L L A NT R E S P ONDE N T . PETITIONER BY : SMT. VANAJA, ADVOCATE . R E S P ONDE N T BY : S H R I P. DHIVAHAR, JCIT (D.R) D AT E OF H E A R I NG : 6. 2.2015. D AT E OF P R ONOU N C EMENT : 6.2. 2015 . O R D E R P E R S H RI JA S ON P BO A Z , A . M . : T H I S APPLICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT A NO.45/BANG/2011 DT.2 7.2 .201 2 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 2 . IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT NON - APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE 2 M.P. NO. 9 /BANG/201 5 PETITIONER HAD FALLEN ILL IN THE SECOND WEEK OF FEB., 2012 AND WAS ADVISED REST AND ADVISED AGAINST LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL BY HIS FAMILY DOCTOR. A COPY OF THE PHYSICIAN S MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DT.10.2.2012 IS ENCLOSED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS F OR THE ABOVE REASON THAT THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER WHO IS BASED IN MANGALORE, COULD NOT TRAVEL TO BANGALORE AND ATTEND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.2.2012. THUS ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R. THE ABSENCE WAS NEITHE R INTENTIONAL NOR WILFUL AND SHE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 2 7. 02.2012 BE RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO HEARD. 3. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NE ITHER INTENTIONAL NOR WILFUL BUT WAS DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE , AS HE HAD TAKEN ILL AT MANGALORE AND WAS ADVISED AGAINST LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 2 7. 02 .201 2 AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 23.3.2015 . AS THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING NEED BE GIVEN. 4. I N T HE R E S U L T , T HE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED. O R D E R P R ONOUN C ED I N TH E O P EN C O U RT ON 6 TH FEB., 2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( P. MADHAVI DEVI) ( JA S ON P BO A Z ) J UD I C I A L M EMB E R AC C OUN T A NT M EMBER * R EDDY G P