Murli Manohar Gupta , Kota vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No. 481/JP/2012)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall an ex parte appellate order where the assessee shows a plausible reason for non-appearance on the hearing date, and recall is in the interest of justice; the reasons offered are the assessee's serious illness of a dependent elderly father requiring the counsel's personal care and the counsel's bona fide, mistaken belief that the matter would be attended to. The recall is granted without the Revenue objecting, and the Tribunal directs that the appeal be fixed for hearing afresh in open court after notice of the new date to both parties, so that no separate notice is required.
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. 15/JP/2015 (Arising out of I.T.A. No. 481/JP/2012) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07 Murli Manohar Gupta, cuke The I.T.O. S/o- Shri Bal Chand Gupta, Ward 2(2), Kota, (Raj). Vs. 1523-A, R.K. Puram, Kota (Raj.)
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFBPG 5438 G
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.S. Gogra & Shri S.K. Gogra (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Neena Jeph (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 22/05/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 22/05/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, AM
The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application against the order
of this Bench of ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No. 481/JP/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07, which
was passed on 11/02/2015.
2 M.A. No. 15/JP/2015_
Murli Manohar Gupta Vs. ITO
2. In this case, the assessee filed appeal vide ITA No. 481/JP/2012 for A.Y.
2006-07 against the order of learned CIT(A), Kota dated 27/03/2012. This
Bench of the ITAT, Jaipur has decided appeal in absence of the assessee by
applying decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India
(P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and dismissed the assessee's appeal.
3. The assessee filed this M.A. and submitted that his counsel Shri Sunil
Kumar Gogra, FCA could not appear on the date of hearing before the Hon'ble
ITAT because his father Shri Shyam Sunder Gogra, aged 69 years was
seriously ill and remained admitted in the Santokabad Durlabhji Memorial
Hospital and was under treatment of Dr. G.R. Singhvi from 02/12/2014 to
28/12/2014 and thereafter he is continuously under the treatment of said
Doctor and advised to take medicines for about 2-3 months from time to
time. Under such circumstances, Shri Sunil Kumar Gogra could not appear
because he has to look after his old aged father and remained under mental
pressure and did not sit in the office. He was under this bonafide impression
that his counsel Shri Sunil Kumar Gogra will attend the case. In support of this
contention, the assessee has enclosed the following documents:-
(a) Discharge Certificate of the Hospital of Shri Shyam Sunder Gogra.
(b) Treatment advised by Dr. G.R. Singhvi after discharge.
(c) Treasury receipt of fee of Rs. 50/- paid on 10/3/2015.
3 M.A. No. 15/JP/2015_ Murli Manohar Gupta Vs. ITO
(d) Certified order dated 11/2/2015 by which the said appeal is dismissed in default (decided ex parte)
(e) Affidavit of Murli Manohar Gupta (Applicant, Appellant)
(f) Authority letter in favour of Shri S.K. Gogra, FCA.
Therefore, he prayed to recall the ex parte order dated 11/02/2015. The D.R.
has not raised any objection if the Hon'ble Bench recall the exparte order
dated 11/02/2015.
4. In view of the above facts as well as the submission of the assessee, we
are of the considered view that the assessee has a plausible reason for not
appearing before this Bench on the date fixed of the hearings, therefore, for
the interest of justice, we recall order dated 11/02/2015 passed by this Bench
in ITA No. 481/JP/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 and the present M.A. filed by the
assessee is allowed and date of hearing of the appeal is given in open court
for 03/08/2015. The registry is directed to fix the case as per the above date
in regular hearing. No separate notice is required to be sent for both the
parties.
5. In the result, this M.A. application is allowed.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ (R.P.Tolani) (T.R. Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22nd May, 2015 4 M.A. No. 15/JP/2015_ Murli Manohar Gupta Vs. ITO
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Murli Manohar Gupta, Kota.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 2(2), Kota, (Raj).
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (M.A. 15/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. 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