Shri Sasnjay Kumar,L/H of Late Sh.Dharam Singh Kamboj, 1842, Sector 17, HUDA,Jagadhri.V ITO, W-1,Yamuna Nagar
June, 04th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH `A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MA No. 39/CHD/2012
In ITA No. 516/CHD/2011
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Sasnjay Kumar, V ITO, W-1,
L/H of Late Sh.Dharam Singh Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar
1842, Sector 17, HUDA,
Appellant by : S/Manohar Lal& Mahesh Kumar
Respondent by : Shri N.K.Saini
Date of Hearing : 01.06.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2012
PER MEHAR SINGH, AM
The assessee filed this Misc.Application under Rule 24
of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, arising out
of ITA No.516/Chd/2011.
2. The assessee in the Misc.Application dated 21.02.2012
contended that the appeal in the case was disposed off by the
Bench, for non-prosecution, vide its order dated 17.10.2011.
It was, further, stated in that application that no notice of
hearing for 17.10.2011 was received by the appellant or any
of its legal heirs. An affidavit to this effect has been filed.
The relevant part of the affidavit is reproduced hereunder:
"I, Sanjay Kumar aged 45 years, legal heir of Late Shri
DharamSingh Kamboj,R/o 1842,Sector 17, HUDA,
Jagadhri (Haryana) do hereby solemnly affirm & declare:
1. That I am legal heir of late Shri Dharam Singh
Kamboj in whose case the appeal for the A.Y. 2006-
07 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Chandigarh
Bench of ITAT as per order dated 17.10.2011 in
appeal No.516/Chd/2011 for non-prosecution of the
2. That neither I nor any other legal heir of late Shri
Dharam Singh Kamboj nor any employee or f amily
members of the legal heirs received the notice for
hearing for the aforesaid appeal as f ixed on
3. The assessee further placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V
S,.Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 41 (S.C) and another
decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V
Gheru Lal Bal Chand (2004) 269 ITR 386 (P&H). In view of
this, ld. 'AR' contended, that to meet the ends of justice, the
Misc.Application deserves to be accepted and consequently,
the assessee requested for recall of the impugned order,
passed by the Bench.
4. Ld. 'DR', did not seriously contested the issue in
5. We have carefully perused the contention raised by the
ld. 'AR'. In this case, the assessee filed application dated
31.07.2011, requesting for adjournment of the case. The
case was adjourned to 17.10.2011. However, on the
appointed date, no-one attended nor any application for
adjournment was received from the assessee.
6. Having regard to the decisions relied upon by the ld.
'AR', as also to meet the essential requirement of substantive
justice, we are of the considered opinion, that the impugned
M.A, filed by the assessee, deserves to be allowed. In this
context, it is pertinent to mention here that substantive
justice must prevail over technicalities. Therefore, having
regard to the submissions made by the assessee and, further,
to meet the ends of justice, Misc.Application filed by the
assessee is allowed.
7. In the result, Misc. Application, filed by the assessee is
allowed. Registry is directed to fix the case on 28.08.2012.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 1 s t June,2012.
(H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 1 s t June,2012.
The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT(A), The CIT,DR
Assistant Registrar, ITAT