Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Shri Lalit M.Patel,, Baroda vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal29 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal may recall its own ex parte order disposing of an appeal where the assessee, on the material placed before it (a medical certificate and affidavit), has demonstrated reasonable cause for non-appearance at the hearing, and recall is necessary in the interest of justice.

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

Judgment

As delivered

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'डी', अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH " D " BENCH, AHMEDABAD सम ी एन.एस.सैनी, लेखा सद य एवं ी कुल भारत, या यक सद य । BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. MA No(s) Assess- MA(s) by No(s). [ in ITA No(s) ] ment Applicant vs. Respondent Year(s) Applicant Respond- (original appellant) ent (original respondent) 1. 192/Ahd/2014 1997- Shri Lalit M.Patel The ITO (in ITA No.2037/Ahd/2010) 1998 4-Atmajyoti Nagar Society Ward- Ellor Park 4(1) Baroda Baroda PAN:AEKPP 4794K 2. 193/Ahd/2014 1998- -do- -do- (in ITA No.2038/Ahd/2010) 1999 3. 194/Ahd/2014 1999- -do- -do- (in ITA No.2039/Ahd/2010) 2000 4. 195/Ahd/2014 2000- -do- -do- (in ITA No.2040/Ahd/2010) 2001

अपीलाथ ओर से / Applicant by : Shri M.G. Patel, AR !"यथ क# ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Roopchand, Sr.DR

ु वाई क# तार&ख / सन Date of Hearing 17/04/2015 घोषणा क# तार&ख /Date of Pronounce ment 29/04/2015

आ दे श / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

These four miscellaneous applications have been filed by the Assessee on 24.11.2014 (arising out of ITA Nos.2037,2038,2039 & 2040/Ahd/2010 for AYs 1997-98 to 2000-01 respectively) in respect of the order dated 22/11/2013 passed by the ITAT "D" Bench, Ahmedabad.

MA Nos.192 to 195 /Ahd/2014 (in ITA Nos.2037,2038,2039 & 2040/Ahd/2010 Shri Lalit M.Patel vs. ITO AYs-1997-98,1998-99,1999-2000 & 2000-01 respectively -2-

2. The assessee had filed four appeals; i.e. ITA Nos.2037, 2038,2039 and 2040/Ahd/2010 for AYs 1997-98 to 2000-01 respectively. All these appeals were fixed for hearing on 20/11/2013. 2.1. During the course of hearing Shri Manish J.Shah, Advocate appeared and informed the Tribunal that Shri M.G.Patel, ld.counsel for the assessee has informed that no instruction has been given by the assessee to appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, he expressed his inability to appear before the Tribunal. Now, ld.counsel for the assessee Shri M.G.Patel submitted that the assessee was in critical medical condition, therefore, the assessee was not in a position to instruct him. He submitted that the assessee was bedridden with severe back-pain and undergoing treatment of Dr.Ashok R.Lalwani from 01/11/2013 onwards. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that a certificate from Dr.Ashok R.Lalwani dated 30/09/2014 is placed on record for kind perusal of this Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee has also filed an Affidavit dated 16/10/2014 in support of the contention made in the applications.

2.2. However, Sr.DR vehemently opposed the applications and submitted that the assessee has not demonstrated any reasonable cause for recalling the Tribunal's order dated 22/11/2013(supra).

3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The reason for non-appearance is given is stated to MA Nos.192 to 195 /Ahd/2014 (in ITA Nos.2037,2038,2039 & 2040/Ahd/2010 Shri Lalit M.Patel vs. ITO AYs-1997-98,1998-99,1999-2000 & 2000-01 respectively -3-

be illness of the assessee, a medical certificate is also placed on record. After considering the rival contentions and looking to the totality of the facts of the case(s), we are of the considered view that the assessee has demonstrated the reasonable cause for his non-appearance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the Tribunal dated 22/11/2013(supra) is hereby recalled and assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.2037,2038,2039 & 2040/Ahd/2010 pertaining to AYs 1997-98 to 2000-01 are directed to be fixed for hearing in due course. The Registry is directed accordingly. Before parting with the matter, we caution the assessee to be vigilant in future and provide the necessary information sought for by the ld.counsel for the assessee.

4. In the result, all the four miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are disposed of as discussed hereinabove.

Order pronounced in the Court on Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2015 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (एन.एस.सैनी) (कुल भारत) लेखा सद य या यक सद य ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/ 04 /2015

ट&.सी.नायर, व. न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS MA Nos.192 to 195 /Ahd/2014 (in ITA Nos.2037,2038,2039 & 2040/Ahd/2010 Shri Lalit M.Patel vs. ITO

AYs-1997-98,1998-99,1999-2000 & 2000-01 respectively -4-

आदे श क त"ल#प अ$े#षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अपीलाथ / The Applicant.

2. !"यथ / The Respondent.

3. संबं2धत आ यकर आ यु4त / Concerned CIT

4. आ यकर आ यु4त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Baroda

5. 5वभागीय ! त न2ध, आ यकर अपील&य अ2धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड9 फाईल / Guard file.

आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स"या5पत ! त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

1. Date of dictation .. 28.4.15(dictation-pad 6- pages attached at the end of this File)

2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ..28.4.15

3. Other Member...

4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................

5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......

6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......29.4.15

7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................29.4.15

8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................

9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................

10. Date of Despatch of the Order..................

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