Saj Flight Services Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 91/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6559 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ ᭠यायपीठ, चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी वी दुगाᭅ राव, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं ᮰ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Misc. Application No. 91/Chny/2018 [In ITA No. 185/Chny/2014] (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/s. Saj Flight Service Pvt. Ltd., No. 46/40, Flat No. ‘A’, Le Royal Kahetra, MGR Road, Kalashetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. [PAN: AAACS-9646-P] v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle –VI(1), Chennai – 600 034. (ᮧाथᭅक /Petitioner) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) ᮧाथᭅक कᳱ ओरसे/ Petitioner by : Shri. J. Radhakrishnan, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13.10.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed present Miscellaneous Application u/s. 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 185/Chny/2014 dated 20.03.2014, for assessment year 2007- 08. :-2-: MA. No: 91/Chny/2018 2. The assessee has narrated facts of its case and mistakes stated to be apparent on record from the order of the tribunal dated 20.03.2014 and relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 are reproduced as under: “The Petitioner above named submits as follows: 1) The Petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2007-08 filed an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) who had partly allowed the appeal. 2) The petitioner filed the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal contending that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the assessment petitioner/assessee the affording without partly reasonable opportunity of being heard. The petitioner further contended that the confirming of the various disallowances on an estimate basis is erroneous, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 3) The Hon'ble Tribunal in its impugned order dismissed the appeal ex-parte vide order dated 20-03-2014. The Hon'ble Tribunal observed that on the date of hearing neither the representative of the petitioner/assessee company appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed in order to pursue the appeal. The Hon'ble Tribunal further observed that the notice issued by the revenue intimating the date of hearing before this Tribunal is returned unserved because the assessee shifted its office premises. Hence the Tribunal inferred that the petitioner/assessee is not interested in conducting the case. The Hon'ble Tribunal followed the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multi Plan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/assessee illemine. 4) The petitioner/assessee seeks the indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal to kindly recall the order and restore the appeal for hearing on merits, as the petitioner/assessee is interested in conducting the appeal on merits. :-3-: MA. No: 91/Chny/2018 5) The petitioner/assessee was a tenant at No.27, Signal Office Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. The land lord of the petitioner had some disputes with a Bank and it appears SARFAESI Act was invoked. Hence the petitioner/assessee was compelled to vacate the office premises and shift to the present address mentioned above. Consequently the petitioner was prevented from communicating the present address either to this Hon'ble Tribunal or its counsel. Further the petitioners counsel could not be contacted since the petitioner understands that its counsel's Mother was hospitalised at that time. The petitioner/assessee on account of the aforesaid factors could not contact professional advisors or seek any help from him for prosecuting the appeal. In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass suitable orders considering the above plea and restore the appeal and thus render justice.” 3. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant contents of petition filed by the appellant, in light of order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 185/Chny/2014, dated 20.03.2014. We find that the Tribunal has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte for non-prosecution by following the decision of ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Ltd 38 ITD 320 (Del), contrary to Rule 24 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, before us explained the reasons for non-appearance when appeal was taken up for hearing. After considering relevant reasons, we find that ex-parte order passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.03.2014, needs to be recalled :-4-: MA. No: 91/Chny/2018 and thus, we recall the order in ITA No. 185/Chny/2014 and direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on 20.11.2023. 4. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 13 th October, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- (वी दुगाᭅ राव) (V. DURGA RAO) ᭠याियकसद᭭य/Judicial Member Sd/- (मंजुनाथ. जी) (MANJUNATHA. G) लेखासद᭭य/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated: 13 th October, 2023 JPV आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ/CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF