Subbunadar Chandrasekar @ S.C.Sekar, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 98/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4746 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V NANDA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.98 & 99/MDS/2016 ( ./ IN I.T.A.NO.363 & 364/MDS/2016) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13) SHRI SUBBUNADAR CHANDRASEKAR @ S.C.SEKAR, 19, THAMBUSAMY ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-VI(3)/INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD- 6(3), CHENNAI-34. PAN: AAEPC4430C (PETITIONER) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. N.DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. V.NANDA KUMAR, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR RECALLING THE EX-PARTE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.363 &364/MDS/2016 DATED 18.04.2 016. 2. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED EX-PARTE ORD ER SINCE THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE GIVEN DATE OF HEARING. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT DUE TO NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR B EFORE THE 2 MP NO.98 & 99/MDS/2016 TRIBUNAL ON THE EARLIER OCCASION. THE LEARNED AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND, VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A GENUINE REA SON FOR NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE GIVEN DATE O F HEARING BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND IN ACCORD ANCE WITH RULE 24 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963, WE HEREBY RECALL THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.04.2016 WHEREIN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE AND HEREBY DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEALS FOR FRESH HEARING ON 20.09.2016. SINCE THE NEXT DATE OF HEAR ING IS INTIMATED IN THE OPEN COURT, NOTICE NEED NOT BE ISS UED. 3 MP NO.98 & 99/MDS/2016 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 19 TH AUGUST , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( A.MOHAN ALANK AMONY ) ' % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' /CHENNAI, ( /DATED THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 0 /DR 6. /GF.