Mansukhbhai M. Donga ., Ahmedabad v. ITO, Ward-7(2)(3),, Ahmedabad

MA 137/AHD/2020 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13720524 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN ADCPD8617K
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 137/AHD/2020
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant Mansukhbhai M. Donga ., Ahmedabad
Respondent ITO, Ward-7(2)(3),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 04-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-05-2021
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 08-07-2020
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.137/AHD/2020 IN ./ ITA NO.2952/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-2015 MANSUKHBHAI M. DONGA 50 DAHYALAL PARK INSIDE VIKRAM PARK THAKKARBAPA NAGAR AHMEDABAD. PAN: ADCPD8617K VS. I.T.O WARD-7(2)(3) AHMEDABAD. M.A NO.138/AHD/2020 IN ./ ITA NO.2953/AHD/2017 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2014-2015 MANSUKHBHAI M. DONGA HUF 50 DAHYALAL PARK INSIDE VIKRAM PARK THAKKARBAPA NAGAR AHMEDABAD. PAN: ADCPD8617K VS. I.T.O WARD-7(2)(3) AHMEDABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RUPESH R. SHAH. A.R REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. SHUKLA SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/04/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/05/2021 / O R D E R M.A NOS. 137-138/AHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.2952-2953/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2014-15 PAGE 2 OF 4 PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE APPLICANTS ASSESSE SEEK TO RECALL THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16/10/2019 WHICH WAS DISMISSED DUE TO NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING BY APPLYING THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 2. THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ARE LATE BY 86 DAYS AS NOTED BY THE REGISTRY IN THE FILE. THE ASSESSE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION STATING THAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO FILE MISC. APPLICATION WITHIN 6 MONTHS AND WAS SERIOUS TO DISPOSE THE MATTER. BUT DUE TO COVID 19 AND CONSIDERING HIS AGE 74 YEARS HE WAS NOT ABLE TO GO OUT DUE TO COVID PANDEMIC SITUATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED LETTER DATED 04/02/2021 SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE APPLICATION READS AS UNDER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED AGAINST ITA APPEAL NO.2952-2953/AHD/2017 WHERE IN THE SAME WAS FIXED ON 12/09/2019 AND PRONOUNCED ON 16.10.2019 BEFORE SMC BENCH AND BY DISMISSING THE ABOVE APPEAL FOR NON APPEARANCE ON DATE OF HEARING BY APPLYING ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD 38 ITD 320 (DEL) WITH REFERENCE TO THIS APPEAL THE APPELLANTS BEGS TO SUBMIT AS UNDER; 1.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT IS FILED RETURN FOR HIS INDIVIDUAL AND HIS HUF AND CERTAIN ADDITION WERE MADE AND CONFIRMED IN 1 ST APPEAL THEREFORE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER FILED 2 ND APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. 1.2 APPELLANT FILED 2 ND APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE ITAT AT AHMEDABAD ON FOLLOWING DATES MANSUKHBHAI M DONGA INDIVIDUAL IT APPEAL NUMBER 2952/AHD/ OF 2017 MANSUKHBHAI M DONGA HUF IT APPEAL NUMBER 2953/AHD/OF 2017 1.3 THAT APPELLANT RECEIVED NOTICE DATED 22.03.2019 FIXED BOTH THE APPEALS ON 15.05.2019. 1.4 THAT APPELLANT SAYS THAT AS PER MY INSTRUCTION MY ADVOCATE RUPESH R. SHAH HAS APPLIED AND ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENT THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED ON 13.05.2019 BEFORE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 1.5 THAT APPELLANT SAYS THAT THEREAFTER FRESH NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BUT I FORGOT TO INFORM TO MY ADVOCATE RUPESH R. SHAH. 1.6 WHEN I INQUIRED TO MY ADVOCATE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ABOVE APPEAL I FOUND THAT MY ABOVE TWO APPEAL WERE DISMISSED FOR NO APPEARANCE MAY BE RESTORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. M.A NOS. 137-138/AHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.2952-2953/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2014-15 PAGE 3 OF 4 IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ITA NO.2952-2953/AHD/2017 MAY BE RESTORING IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THERE ARE SUFFICIENT REASON WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FILING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE TIME THE DELAY IN FILING THE M.AS MAY BE CONDONED. 3.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963 DOES NOT STIPULATE ANY TIME LIMIT AND THIS BEING EX-PARTE ORDER IT HAS TO BE RECALLED. 3.2 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY FAILED TO INTIMATE THE DATE OF HEARING TO HIS COUNSEL AND THEREFORE THE COUNSEL FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THUS THE EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL CAME TO BE PASSED BY THE ITAT. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. COUNSEL REQUESTED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER. 4 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE MAS VIS A VIS ON RECALLING OF THE IMPUGNED EX- PARTE ORDERS FOR FRESH HEARING. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISC. APPLICATION BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER THIS BEING AN EX-PARTE ORDER THE RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES COMES TO RESCUE THE ASSESSEE. IT DOES NOT STIPULATE ANY TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER BUT REQUIRES THERE HAS TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. BESIDES IN THIS CASE NO MERIT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED SIMPLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION NOT ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ALSO ON THE GROUNDS OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THESE APPEALS DESERVE TO BE RECALLED. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OM PRAKASH SANGWAN VS. ITO REPORTED IN 94 TAXMANN.COM 394 HAS AS UNDER:- M.A NOS. 137-138/AHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.2952-2953/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2014-15 PAGE 4 OF 4 3. RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'S RULES AND THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF BOTH THE INCOME TAX ACT AND RULES INDICATE THAT THE ITAT HAS TO DECIDE THE APPEALS OR MATTERS BEFORE IT ON THE MERITS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ITAT'S FAILURE TO DO SO IMPLIES THAT IT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION AND INSTEAD OF DECIDING ON THE MERITS REJECTED THE APPEAL MERELY FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT RULE 25 DOES NOT STIPULATE ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH THE AGGRIEVED PARTY CAN APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL IT IS OPEN TO THE APPELLANT TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL WITH A SUITABLE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS; IN SUCH EVENT THE APPEALS COULD BE CONSIDERED ON THEIR MERITS AND DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES PROVIDED THE APPLICATION IS PRESENTED BEFORE THE ITAT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM TODAY. APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF IN THE ABOVE TERMS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE SAID APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED AND REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO LIST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04/05/2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/05/2021 MANISH