KHUSHNUMA M. KUTAR, MUMBAI V. I.T.O. WARD 12(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3700/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2245 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AKASH JADHAV
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI R.V.EASWAR, SR.VP AND SHRI J.SUDHAKAR R EDDY,AM I.T.A. NO.3700/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) KHUSHNUMA M.KUTAR C/O.SHIRISH H.SHAH & CO. 1/2, MANGROL MANSION 6,RUSTOM SIDHWA MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. PAN:AADPK1730A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 12(2)(3), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. AKASH JADHAV RESPONDENT BY : MR. MANVENDRA GOYAL, DR O R D E R PER R.V.EASWAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E CIT(A) DISMISSING HIS APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.10, 000/- UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE HIM IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE SEVERAL NOTICES. HE ALSO CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON MERITS. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATEME NT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN WHICH THE REASONS WHICH PREVENTED HIM FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN THE FORM OF A CHART . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE S REPRESENTATIVE, WHO WAS DULY INFORMED OF THE NOTICE S BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS PROFESSIONALLY PRE-OCCUPIED AND THERE FORE COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARINGS. ON ONE OCCASION HE COULD N OT ATTEND THE HEARING BECAUSE HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW HAD TO BE AD MITTED IN ITA NO.3700/M/09 2 HOSPITAL. IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N SUFFICIENT CARE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES BY INFORMING HIS RE PRESENTATIVE AND THAT IT WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY, FOR VALID REASONS, OF THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WENT UNATTENDED. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DEFAULTS AND THE CASE DOES NOT JUSTIF Y LEVY OF PENALTY. WE THEREFORE CANCEL THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) SD/- ( R.V.EASWAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SENIOR VICE PRES IDENT MUMBAI, DATED 15 TH APRIL, 2010. SOMU COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-XII, MUMBAI. 4. THE CIT(A)-XII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR A BENCH /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI