Parle Sales and Services Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-5(1), Ahmedabad

MA 99/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6122 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANISTA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES B, AHM EDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, J.M.& SH RI A.N.PAHUJA, A.M, M.A.NO.99/AHD/2010 (ARISING OUT ITA NOS.1689/AHD/2009 ASST.YEAR.2005-06 M/S. PARLE SALES AND SERVICES PVT. LTD.( NOW MERGED WITH PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD.) WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI- 400099 PAN NO.AAACP9019R VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.M. MEHTA, RESPONDENT BY: SHR I R.K. DHANISTA, SR DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS (MA), THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTED FOR RE-CALLING OF THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY APP LYING THE DECISION OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 IN ITA NO.1689/AHD/2009 DATED 25-09-2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARING ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE REQUESTED FOR RE-CALLING OF THE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BY HIS MA PETITION, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 3. IN THIS REGARDS WE STATE THAT THE NOTICE OF HEA RING AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER WAS DULY SERVED ON THE APPLICANT AND THE SAME WAS HANDED OVER TO ASSISTANT MANAGER MR. UTTAM KHAMKAR BY INWARD CLERK . THE SAID ASSISTANT MANAGER HAD KEPT THAT NOTICE IN HIS TABLE BUT ON AC COUNT OF PRESSURE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFOR E 30.09.2009 HE FORGOT TO HANDOVER THE SAME TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED (COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF ASSISTANT MANAGER MR. UTTAM KHAMKAR IS ATTACHED HER EWITH) AND AS SUCH ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE HEARING FIXED ON 2 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, WE COME TO KNOW THE SAID F ACT AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDDERE DATED 25.09.2009 DISMISSING OUR APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. PROVISO TO RULE 24 PROVIDES THAT WHEN THE APPLIC ANT SUBSEQUENT TO THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY EX PARTE ORDER, APPEARS A ND SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-AP PEARANCE THEN IN THAT MA NO.99/AHD/2010 (ITA NO.1689/AHD/2009) M/S. PARLE SALES & SERVICES PVT. LTD. V. ITO WD-5(1 )ABD 2 CASE, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SET ASIDE SUCH EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THEIR FILE. WITHOUT P REJUDICE THE APPLICANT SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR AN INADVERTENT ERROR ON HIS PART. 5. THE NON-APPEARANCE FOR HEARING WAS NOT DELIBERAT E. THE APPLICANT WAS UNAWARE OF THE HARING AND HENCE, IT IS NOTHING BUT A BONA FIDE MISTAKE. THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE HEA RING OF THE APPEAL WAS YET TO BE FIXED AND IT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE H EARING WHEN THE APPLICANT RECEIVED EX PARTE ORDER. 2. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-ATTENDANCE, ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF NAT URAL JUSTICE, WE RE-CALL THE ORDER. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL I N DUE COURSE. 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES MA IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/02/2011. SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AHMEDABAD. DATE : 18/02/2011 DKP* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DR / AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD