PRAFUL M. PATEL, V. DCIT RG 22(3),

MA 110/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9113 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KRISHNAMOORTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: P NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, J.M. AND SHRI RAJENDRA SI NGH, A.M. M.A. NO. : 110/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.627/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PRAFUL M. PATEL (KAPUPARA), PROP: M/S. RAJ CONSTRUCTION & M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.B-25, SECTOR-29, AGROLI VILLAGE, AT : POST KONKAN BHAVAN, NAVI MUMBAI-400 614 PAN NO: AGGPP 3391 P VS. DCIT, RANGE 22(3), 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER-6, VASHI RLY. STN. COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400 703 (APPE LLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. NARAYANAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. KRISHNA MOORTHY DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1627/MUM/2010. 2. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. TH E ASSESSEE IN THE M.A. NO : 110/MUM/2012 SHRI PRAFUL M. PATEL (KAPUPARA) 2 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE NO N COMPLIANCE WAS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS WAS DUE TO THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ER ROR MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN MENTIONING THE ADDRESS IN FORM NO.36 IN WHICH PLOT NO. WAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED AS B-75 IN PLACE OF B-25. AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AND I T HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALL FOR PROVIDING AN OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECO RDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER WHICH WILL BE HEARD IN THE NORMAL C OURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- - SD/- ( I. P. BANSAL ) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 03.08.2012 M.A. NO : 110/MUM/2012 SHRI PRAFUL M. PATEL (KAPUPARA) 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI