M/s. Ambica Golden Jewellers, Bharuch V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

MA 97/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8879 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUAMR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.97/AHD/2012 IN I.T.A. NO. 270/ AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) M/S. AMBICA GOLDEN JEWELLERS, 2/3 RANG UPAVAN SHOPPING CENTRE,, PANCH BATTI STATION ROAD, BHARUCH VS. ITO, WARD 1, BHARUCH PAN/GIR NO. : AAEFA0776B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R N VEPARI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D K SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 21.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.09.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- AS PER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSE E IS REQUESTING TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 09.02.2012 . THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS COMBINED TRIBUNAL ORDER OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS BOTH THES E APPEALS WERE HEARD AND DECIDED TOGETHER. THE APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEE DINGS WAS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL IN PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS ALLOWE D AND IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUESTI NG TO RECALL ONLY THE QUANTUM APPEAL WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE APPLICATION ON 3.12.2011 RECEIVED BY THE M.A.NO.97 /AHD/2012 2 TRIBUNAL ON 05.01.2012 REQUESTING ADJOURNMENT OF TH E DATE IN THE SAME WEEK FORM 16.01.2012 TO 19.01.2012 BECAUSE THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COME BACK TO SURAT BECAUSE HIS T RAIN TICKETS COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE DEFAULT HAS ARISEN BECAUSE OF HIS FAILURE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER AND, THEREFORE, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS EX- PARTE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE RECALLED. 3. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D. R. THAT EVEN IF THE ORDER IS TO BE RECALLED THEN THE ENTIRE ORDER SHOUL D BE RECALLED AND NOT IN PART. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN THE PAST, COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOU S DATES AND APPEAL COULD NOT BE HEARD FOR WANT OF TIME ON VARIOUS OCCA SIONS. ON SEVERAL DATES, DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENTS. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT ONLY FOR A FEW DAYS I.E. FORM 16.01.2012 TO 19.01.2012 I.E. WITHIN THE SAME WEEK FROM MONDAY TO THURSDAY. NOW, BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THA T IT WAS HIS FAULT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER AND THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON HIS PART THAT HE COULD NOT GET RESERVATION TO COME BACK FROM KERALA TO SURAT IN TIME. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE FEEL TH AT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APP OINTED DATE OF HEARING. HENCE, WE RECALL THIS EX-PARTE TRIBUNAL O RDER AS PER RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963. WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT ALTHOUGH IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, REQUEST IS MADE ONLY FOR RECALLING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN PE NALTY APPEAL, WE FEEL THAT THE ORDER PASSED IS A COMBINED ORDER AND THE P ENALTY IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL DECISION AND HENCE, WE RECALL TH E SAME ALSO SUO MOTO. WE RECALL THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN RESPECT OF PENALTY APPEAL ALSO BECAUSE M.A.NO.97 /AHD/2012 3 WHEN QUANTUM APPEAL IS BEING RECALLED, PENALTY APPE AL SHOULD ALSO BE DECIDED SIMULTANEOUSLY. THEREFORE, WE RECALL THE ENTIRE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 09.02.2012 AND FIX BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE I.E. IN QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR HEARING ON 26.11.2012. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NOTICE OF HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL KUMARSHRAWAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 24/09/2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27/09/2012.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 28/09/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.28/9/12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 28/ 09/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .