Miss Lucy
← All judgments

The Nilgiri Dairy Farm P Ltd, Bangalore vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal13 February 2015

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALBANGALORE BENCH " C "BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ANDSHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERM.P. No.4/Bang/2015(In I.T.A. No.236/Bang/2014)(Assessment Year : 2007-08)

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