JAGMANDRI FINVEST P.LTD, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICE 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 105/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6847 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 105/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 7392/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) & MA No. 106/MUM/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 7393/Mum/2016) (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Jagmandri Finvest Pvt. Ltd., D-108 Lotus Ansal Vihar, New Link Road, Nr. Shimpoli Telephone Exchange, Borivali (West), Mumbai - 400092 [PAN : AAACJ1452A] ................ Appellant Income Tax Officer 9(2)(1), Mumbai Vs ................ Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Shashikant Goyal Shri Anil Sant Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 07.07.2023 04.10.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Appellant for rectification of order, dated 16/02/2022, passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 7392 & 7393/Mum/2016, pertaining to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The contention of the Learned Authorised Representative for MA Nos. 105 & 106/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 the Appellant is that vide letter, dated 05/02/2022, the Appellant had sought time till April, 2022 as the new counsel was appointed by the Appellant who had requested for time. It is for the aforesaid reason that the Appellant was not able to proceed with the hearing of both the appeals listed on 08/02/2022. On getting knowledge about the dismissal of appeals, the Appellant filed the present miscellaneous applications seeking recall of ex-parte common order dismissing both the appeals. The Learned Authorised Representative appearing before us, under instructions, stated that the Appellant undertakes to diligently pursue the appeals. 3. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative submitted that Appellant had adopted delaying tactics and had sought adjournments on a number of occasions citing same reason that the counsel is yet to be appointed. He also submitted that there was a huge delay of filing the appeal and therefore, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation rejecting the reasoning given for the delay in application seeking condonation of delay. 4. On perusal of record we find since none had appeared for the Appellant on the last date of hearing the request for adjournment made vide letter, dated 05/02/2022, was rejected and that both the appeals preferred by the Appellant were dismissed as being barred by limitation. Now the Appellant is before us seeking an opportunity to present and plead his case in the appeals. 5. We note that as per Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT Rules’], subject to conditions specified in proviso thereto, an appeal dispose of by the Tribunal by an ex-parte order can be restored. Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules reads as under: “Hearing of appeal ex-parte for default by the appellant MA Nos. 105 & 106/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 3 24. Where, on the day fixed for hearing or on any other date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or through an authorised representative when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Tribunal may dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the respondent : Provided that where an appeal has been disposed of as provided above and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance, when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order and restoring the appeal.” 6. Having considered the explanation furnished by the Appellant for not appearing of the date fixed for hearing and on perusal of records, we are of the view that the Appellant had sufficient reason for not appearing on the last date fixed for hearing. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 24 of ITAT Rules we deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to recall ex-parte common order, dated 16/02/2022, passed by the Tribunal and restore ITA No. 7393/Mum/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and ITA No. 7392/Mum/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to the original number. The registry is directed to list both the appeals for hearing before regular bench in due course after notice to both the sides. The Appellant is directed to place on record fresh Authority Letter appointing the counsel in both the appeals before the date of hearing of appeals fixed by the Registry. In result, both the Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. Order pronounced on 04.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 04.10.2023 Alindra, PS MA Nos. 105 & 106/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai