Ballabh Chhipa Huf , Jaipur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 160/JP/2012)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal recalls its ex-parte order where the assessee's non-appearance resulted from non-receipt of the hearing notice, which constitutes a reasonable cause; the application for recall is therefore allowed, and the assessee is given one further opportunity to contest the appeal on payment of costs.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM
M.A. No. 11/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 160/JP/2012) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2007-08
Shri Hari Ballabh Chippa cuke The ITO (HUF) 13, Mahaveer Nagar Vs. Ward- 7 (2) Z, Dada Badi Road, Opp. Jaipur Railway Station, Sanganer, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADHH 0663 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anil Bhandari, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Smt. Neena Jeph, JCIT
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/03/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/04/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM
Through this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee prays for
recalling of ex-parte order dated 15-09-2014 of Tribunal in ITA No.
160/JP/2012 for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee mainly
contended in his Miscellaneous Application as under:- 2 M.A. No. 11/JP/2015
Shri Hari Ballabh Chippa vs. ITO, Ward- 7 (2), Jaipur
''4. ...it is submitted that non-appearance was because of not having received the hearing notice and hence there was a reasonable cause. It is further submitted that the assessee's contention was not that the case should be reviewed but the Miscellaneous Application is for recalling the ex-parte order of Tribunal dated 15-09-2014.''
2.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the miscellaneous
application.
2.2 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available
on record, we find that the notice was sent to the party by Registered post
but it was returned unserved. Though the Bench also observed that the
assessee has not intimated his new change of address yet the assessee has
been negligent in pursuing his case. However, the assessee is given one
more chance to contest his case before the Tribunal in view of his prayer
but the assessee is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as cost and the
appeal of the assessee is fixed for hearing on 21-05-2015. The registry is
directed to fix the date of hearing of the appeal on 21-05-2015. 3 M.A. No. 11/JP/2015
Shri Hari Ballabh Chippa vs. ITO, Ward- 7 (2), Jaipur
3.0 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /04/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (T.R. Meena) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 10th April, 2015 *Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Hari Ballabh Chippa (HUF) , Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward-7 (2), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A).
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The CIT
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No.11/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free