MANMANDIR CLOTH CENTRE,KANNAD V. PCIT, NASHIK

MA 76/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Manmandir Cloth Centre, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against an ex-parte order dismissing their appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant argued that their tax consultant, due to health issues, was unable to access emails or attend to office matters, leading to no representation at the Tribunal during the scheduled hearings. The Departmental Representative opposed the application, asserting there was no error in the Tribunal's initial order. The Tribunal, referencing Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, found merit in the appellant's argument and recalled the ex-parte order, emphasizing the need for justice and fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778078 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM RATHI THROUGH VIRTUAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.76/PUN/2025 Arising out of ITA No.1012/PUN/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Manmandir Cloth Centre C/o Manmandir Cloth Centre Bazaar Peth, Tal Kannad, Aurangabad – 431103 Vs. PCIT, Nashik PAN: AAJFM6647G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shubham Rathi (through virtual) Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of hearing : 26-09-2025 Date of pronouncement : 07-10-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : The assessee through this Miscellaneous Application requests the Tribunal to recall the ex-parte order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Application submitted that the assessee in Form No.36 had given the e-mail ID address as [e-mail] which belongs to the regular tax consultant of the assessee firm Mr. Manikchand Badjate. He submitted that the notices of hearing were served on the said e-mail address. However, Mr. Badjate who is around 76 years of age and having health issues was not coming to office Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.76/PUN/2025 regularly and therefore, could not access the e-mail for which nobody could represent before the Tribunal on the dates of hearing. Further, no physical notice was served on the assessee for which the assessee also could not know regarding the hearing dates. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the order of the Tribunal should be recalled as per the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the appeal be heard on merit. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that there is no apparent error in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the same should be upheld and the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee should be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance of the assessee on any of the dates of hearing the Tribunal has passed the ex-parte order. We find the provisions of Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 read as under: “Hearing of appeal ex parte for default by the appellant. 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent: Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.76/PUN/2025 5. We are satisfied with the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the dates of hearing. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 29.10.2025 which was announced in the open Court. It was further announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent, to which both the parties agreed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 7th October, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.76/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 26.09.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 06.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "