Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Lizy Georgra, Bangalore vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal12 February 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may recall its own ex parte dismissal of an appeal under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, where the assessee's non-appearance on the date of hearing was due to reasonable cause and not deliberate, and where an adjournment application filed before the Registry had not been brought to the Bench's notice before the appeal was taken as heard and dismissed in limine.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL'C' BENCH: BANGALOREBEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBERandSHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERMisc.Petn.No.8/Bang/2015(In ITA No.67/Bang/2014)(Assessment year: 2006-07)

Mrs. Lizy George, Chemmanur Enclave, Marathalli P.O.Basavanagar, Bangalore-560 037. PAN:ADAPG3712A ... Petitioner

Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 7(1), Bangalore. ... Respondent

Petitioner by: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate. Respondent by: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR).

Date of hearing : 06/02/2015 Date of pronouncement: 12/02/2015.

O R D E R

Per Smt. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM:

This Misc.Petn., is filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short] read with rule 24 of the ITAT Rules,1963 seeking recall of

the order of the Tribunal dated 01/12/2014 dismissing the appeal

in limine. In the MP for recall, it is stated that the assessee had

filed an application for adjournment dated 28/11/2014 before the MP No.8/Bang/2015 Mrs.Lizy George.

Page 2 of 3 Assistant Registrar, ITAT, seeking adjournment of the matter on

01/12/2014 stating that the authorized representative of the

assessee was not in station and hence unable to represent the

matter before the Bench. However, since the said application was

not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench on the date of

hearing, the same was taken as heard and dismissed in limine. It

is stated that the failure to make appearance on the date of

hearing was due to reasonable cause and was not deliberate and

therefore prayed for recall of the order of the Tribunal for hearing

afresh on merits.

2. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the

documents filed by the assessee, we are satisfied that the order of

the Tribunal requires to be recalled. Accordingly, the order of the

Tribunal dated 01/12/2014 is set aside and the appeal is fixed for

hearing afresh on 18/03/2015. As the date of hearing has been

announced in the open court at the time of hearing of the

Misc.Petn., no fresh notice need be given.

3. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on 12th February, 2015.

sd/- sd/- (Jason P Boaz) (Smt. P.Madhavi Devi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

eksrinivasulu MP No.8/Bang/2015 Mrs.Lizy George. Page 3 of 3 Copy to:

1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file

By order

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore

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