PRAGARAM J. PATEL, MUMBAI V. ITO 19 (2)(5), MUMBAI

MA 11/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0620 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.11/MUM./2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5743 /MUM. /201 8 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 10 11 ) PRAGARAM J. PATEL 67/26, 2 ND FLOOR, KHOLSAWALA BUILDING DR. M.G. MAHIMTURA MARG 3 RD KUMBHARWADA, MUMBAI 400 004 PAN AACPP1426B . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 9 (2)( 5 ), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. SHREEKALA PARDESHI DATE OF HEARING 05.0 2 .202 1 DATE OF ORDE R 16.02.2021 O R D E R PER SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2019, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5743/MUM./2018 . 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE US . EVEN THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE EITHER. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THIS MISC. APPLICATION ON 2 PRAGARAM J. PATEL MERIT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3. BEFORE US, T HE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD. THE ORDER DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2019, WHICH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN, HAS BEEN PASSED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE ORDER SO PASSED IS PURELY DECIDED ON THE MERIT OF THE ISSUE AND, HENCE QUESTION OF MISTAKE INASMU CH AS WH ICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD DOES NOT ARISE. FURTHER, WE NOTICE THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATION WAS FILED ON 10 TH JANUARY 2020. THIS CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING SINCE 28 TH FEBRUARY 2020, AND CAME UP FOR HEARING ON SEVEN OCCASIONS UNTIL THIS DATE OF HEARIN G. IN ALL THESE OCCASIONS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY FILED THE MISC. APPLICATION SIMILAR TO THE APPEAL AND NOT BOTHERED TO MAKE REPRESENTATION. EVEN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDER ED OPINION, THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGS TO STAND AND CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 3 PRAGARAM J. PATEL 5. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.02.2021 SD/ - PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 16.02.2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI