Shri Kesharbhai Ghamarbhai Chaudhary, Palanpur v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Palanpur

MA 281/AHD/2009 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28120524 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ABUPC4055G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 281/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Shri Kesharbhai Ghamarbhai Chaudhary, Palanpur
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-1,, Palanpur
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 08-01-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 08-01-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 21-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI N.S. SAINI A.M.) M.A. NO. 281/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1402/AHD./2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 KESHARBHAI GHAMARBHAI CHAUDHARY POLANPUR -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 PALANPUR (P.A. NO. ABUPC 4055 G) (APPLICANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. NEETA SHAH SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RE-CALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL D ATED 10.07.2009 IN ITA NO. 1402/AHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT IS MENTIONE D THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT BUT IT SEEMS THAT POSTAL DEPARTMENT BY MIST AKE MENTIONED THE REMARK NOT FOUND. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THE SAME ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN AND ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE ARE RECEIVED AT TH E VERY SAME ADDRESS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES A REQUEST WAS MADE THAT TRIBUNAL MAY RECALL ITS ORDER AND A FRESH DATE MAY RE-FIX THE APPEAL. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SHRI MANISH J. SHAH LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DATE OF HEARING MAY PLEAS E BE ANNOUNCED SO THAT ON THE GIVEN DATE COMPLIANCE CAN BE MADE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND SMT. NEETA J. SHAH LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE NOTICE OF HEARING WITH THE REMARKS NOT FOUND WHICH RESULTED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. [38 I.T.D. 320 (D ELHI)]. ADMITTEDLY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS WE RE -CALL OUR ORDER DATED 10.07.2009 IN ITA NO. 1402/AHD/2009 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE AP PEAL ON 10.03.2010. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS 2 M.A. NO. 281/AHD/2009 INFORMED TO BOTH THE SIDES. THEREFORE THE FORMALIT Y TO ISSUE FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING IS DISPENSED WITH. 4. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08.01.2010 SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08 / 01 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.