IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. No. 80/Bang/2019 (in ITA No. 3417/Bang/2018) Assessment Year 2014-15 M/s. Wyzmindz Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No. 19/3, Srinivasa Industrial Income Tax Estate, Officer, Kanakapura Main Road, Vs. Ward 7 (1) (4), Konanakunte Post, Bangalore. Bangalore 560 062. PAN AABCW0126B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Mahesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue by Shri Ganesh G. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of hearing 06.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2019 ORDER Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This M.P. is filed by assessee seeking recall of ex-parte Tribunal order dated 18.01.2019. 2. It is stated by assessee in M.P. that appeal was filed by assessee before Tribunal on 27.12.2018 and defect memo was issued by Registry of Tribunal on date of filing of appeal and in same, date of hearing was also intimated being 16.01.2019. It is submitted in M.P. that ld. AR of assessee was informed about defect memo and date fixed by Tribunal but assessee as well as ld. AR of assessee was under impression that date was given to rectify defect and not for hearing of appeal and therefore, none appeared before Tribunal on appointed date of hearing. 3. In course of hearing, bench wanted to know as to whether defect was removed by assessee and in reply, ld. AR of assessee submitted copy of Form No. 26AS and pointed out that as per this form, fees of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on 20.12.2018 under Major Head 20 and Minor Head 400 and column under which this payment is reflected is Others . At this juncture, M.P. No. 80/Bang/2019 (in ITA No. 3417/Bang/2018) Page 2 of 3 bench pointed out that as per copy of challan available on record, amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid under head Tax on Regular Assessment. bench observed that this payment cannot be considered as payment for appeal fees. But in interest of justice, it can be held that if assessee agrees to make fresh payment of appeal fees on or before 15.09.2019, then this ex-parte Tribunal order can be recalled in view of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963. ld. AR of assessee agreed to this proposition put forward by bench. ld. DR of revenue submitted that since assessee has not rectified this defect in appeal filed by assessee and none appeared on behalf of assessee on appointed date of hearing, this ex-parte Tribunal order should not be recalled. 4. I have considered rival submissions. I find that as required by Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963, assessee has explained reasons due to which none could appear before Tribunal on appointed date of hearing i.e. 16.01.2019 and I am satisfied that reasons stated by assessee are reasonable and hence, as per Rule 24 of ITAT Rules, 1963, this ex-parte Tribunal order should be recalled but because assessee has not rectified defect as pointed out by Registry regarding payment of appeal fees under wrong head, I feel it proper to direct assessee to make payment of appeal fees afresh under proper head on or before 15.09.2019 and subject to this condition, I recall this ex-parte Tribunal order and fix appeal for hearing on 14.10.2019. On date of hearing, assessee should produce proof of payment of appeal fees as directed above. Since date of hearing is pronounced in open court, no separate notice of hearing is required to be issued. 5. In result, M.P. filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on date mentioned on caption page. Sd/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, 13th September, 2019. /MS/ M.P. No. 80/Bang/2019 (in ITA No. 3417/Bang/2018) Copy to 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Wyzmindz Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward7(1)(4), Bangalore