The Nilgiri Dairy Farm P Ltd, Bangalore vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No.236/Bang/2014)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may recall an ex parte dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution under Section 254(2) where the non-appearance of the assessee's authorised representative was neither intentional nor wilful but due to reasonable cause, and where that cause is established to the Tribunal's satisfaction by the material placed before it, including the representative's adjournment letter.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The Nilgiri Dairy Farm P. Ltd., Mfar Silverline Tech Park, No.180, 1st Floor, EPIP Phase II, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 066. .... Petitioner. PAN AAACT 8121A
Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(4), Bangalore. ..... Respondent.
Petitioner By : Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A. Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, Addl. CIT.
Date of Hearing : 13.2.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 13.2.2015.
O R D E R
Per Shri Jason P. Boaz :
This application under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') has
been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal in ITA
No.236/Bang/2014 dt.28.10.2014 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-appearance of the
petitioner before the Tribunal on the date of hearing was due to the fact that the learned
Authorised Representative had sought adjournment of the hearing on 28.10.2014, vide letter M.P. No.4/Bang/2015 (In ITA No.236/Bang/2014) 2
dt.15.10.2014, as the assessee's personnel looking after this matter were to brief the learned
Authorised Representative's for effective representation of the case. It is submitted that it
appears that the adjournment letter dt.15.10.2014 filed by the learned Authorised
Representative was not brought to the notice of the Bench, leading to dismissal of the
assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. It was submitted that it was for the above reason
that the authorized representative of the petitioner did not attend before the Tribunal on the
date of hearing i.e. 28.10.2014. ; Thus according to the ld. A.R. the absence was neither
intentional nor willful but due to reasonable cause and prayed that the order of the Tribunal
dt.28.10.2014 be recalled for fresh hearing. The learned Departmental Representative was
also heard.
3. We are satisfied with the contention of the learned Authorised Representative of the
assessee that the absence of the learned Authorised Representative on 28.10.2014 was
neither intentional nor willful but was due to reasonable causes for the reason stated in this
M.P. In view of the same, we recall the order of the Tribunal dt.28.10.2014 and post the
appeal for hearing on 24.3.2015. As the date of hearing has been announced in the open court
in the presence of both the parties, no fresh notice of hearing need be given.
4. In the result, the miscellaneous petition is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13th Feb., 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (JASON P BOAZ) Judicial Member Accountant Member *Reddy gp
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