SHRI NOORUDDIN MODI, V. DCIT CEN CIR 42,

MA 119/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7841 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 119/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 860/MUM/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SHRI NOORUDDIN MODI DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 42 3RD FLOOR, 130 RAUDAT TAHERA MUMBAI STREET, NULL BAZAR VS. MUMBAI 400003 PAN - AHFPM 4097 D APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PAWAN VED DATE OF HEARING: 10.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.02.2012 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEK S RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 17 TH JANUARY 2011 PASSED BY THE ITAT B BENCH, MUMBAI. 2. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY RPAD FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 04.11.2010 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM AND HENCE HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE HEARING WHICH RESULTED IN EXPARTE DISPOSAL AND THUS THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTICE HERE THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY ON 06.10.2010. THE NOTICE HAVING BEEN NOT RETURNED UNSERVED, A REGISTERED NOTICE HAS TO BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE THE CASE WAS A DJOURNED FROM 04.11.2010 TO 17.01.2011. EVEN ON THAT DATE NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS DISPOSED OF EXPART E. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS SENT BY RPAD, WHICH WAS ALSO RETUR NED, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS OR IS NOT IN THE HABIT OF MA NO. 119/MUM/2011 SHRI NOORUDDIN MODI 2 ACCEPTING THE NOTICES. HOWEVER, JUSTIFYING THE PLEA OF NON-SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ASSESSEE MERELY FIELD THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION AND THE REGISTRY AGAIN ISSUED A NOTICE FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING O N 26.08.2011, ON WHICH DATE NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.09.2011. AGAIN NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE BUT NONE APPEARED AND EVEN THEREAFTER ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN FURNISHING ANY PROOF WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM MADE IN THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH FEBRUARY 2012. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 10 TH FEBRUARY 2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 38, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT CENTRAL IV, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.