KAMRUDDIN KHAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 17(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2232/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8588 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN I.T.A. NO.2232/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI KAMRUDDIN KHAN, PROP. OF M/S. IDIA TRAILAR SERVICE, 1 ST FLOOR, OFF. NO 27,OPP. VISHWA VIHAR HINDU HOTEL, ZAKARIA BUNDER ROAD, MUMBAI-400 033 PAN NO : AEVPK 2912C VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(3)(2) MUMBAI-400 051 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANDEEP GOYAL ORDER PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-29 DT. 15.1.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5.06. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFOR E WE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DISPOSE OF THE MATT ER EX PARTE ON MERIT. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S. INDIAN TRAILOR SERVICES ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMISSION ON TRANSPORT CHARGES AND HIRE CHARGES IN RESPECT OF TRAILOR. THE ITO COMPLETED THE ASSESSM ENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT ITA NO. 2232/M/2010 2 ON 26.12. 2007. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY ORDER DT. 15.1.2010 HAD TABULATE D THE DATES ON WHICH THE HEARING HAVE BEEN PUT UP AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED FOR THE HEARING. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE APPELLANT WAS ALLOWED SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. BUT, HE DID NOT COMPLY. IT APPEARS THAT HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING AN APPEAL, IT MAY BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND S OF NON- ATTENDANCE AND NON-PROSECUTION. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE AP PELLANTS ITP WAS BED-RIDDEN AND THEREFORE COULD NOT ATTEND ON 24 .12.2009 AND HE ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THAT EFFECT. 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN APPLYING THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDI A (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 AND THEREFORE WE SEND BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FIL E OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER DENOVO AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. ITA NO. 2232/M/2010 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL ) ( ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 31 ST JANUARY, 2011. RJ COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ITA NO. 2232/M/2010 4 DATE INITIALS DRAFT DICTATED ON 24 /01/2011 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 24 /01/2011 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROV ED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE OF DISPATCH