MANGALA KAMATH, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

MA 131/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3070 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K BAGCHI
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR G ADALE, JM M.A. NO.131/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 72/MUM/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) MRS. MANGLA KAMATH C/O S.L.JAIN TAX CONSULTANT 1302/3 NAVJIVAN COMMERCIAL PREMISES LAMINGTON ROAD MUMBAI-400 008 VS. ITO-20(2)(2) PIRAMAL CHAMBER, 6 TH FLOOR, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012 PAN/GIR NO. AJEPK4644H ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.K.BAGCHI DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 .10.2021 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESS EE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD U/S.254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 72/MUM/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2018. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED AS UNDER:- THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.12.2017 PASS BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSE SSEE HAD SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND COMPILATION OF PAPER BOOK. THE ORDE R - DATED 12.12.2017 WAS PASSED AND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01/01/2018 FOR THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER. 2 MA NO.131/M/20 1. THE ORDER RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO MR. S.L.JAIN,AAUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR FILLING MA. BUT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM/ SEVIER BACK PAIN AND COULD ABLE TO WALK. FINALLY HE HAS TO FOR SPINE SURGERY AT KOKILABEN AMBANI HOSPITAL ON 6 TH AUGUST,2019. THAN AFTER V- TO COMPLETE REST FOR SIX MONTHS. THEN AFTER NOT ABLE TO WALK. DUE TO HEA VY AND PAIN KILLER MEDICINE HE IS SUFFERING POSTED AND OTHER DISEASE. ASSES SEE PREVENTED WITH REASONABLE CAUSE. 2. AS PER SECTION 254 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1 961. THE APPELLANT TRIBUNAL MAY AFTER GIVING BOTH PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. PASS SUCH ORDER THERE ON IT THINK FIT. 3. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPLICANT MAY BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ONLY BY RECALLING THE W IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS SUBMITTED WITH GREAT RESPECT THAT KEEPING WITH THE STATUTORY RESPECT, THAT IN KEEPING WITH STATUTORY PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNE D ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND APPEAL MAY BE FIXED AGAIN FOR FRESH HEARING. 4. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT AWARE OF TH E PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY HONBLE ITAT AND ITS REGISTRY. THE APPLICANT WAS COMPLETELY RELYING ON HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WITH RESPECTIVE TO THE SAME. THE APP LICANT WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS REGULA RLY ATTENDING THE HEARING BEFORE HONBLE ITAT AND KEEPING A TRACK ON THE STATUS OF A PPEAL. THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE HONBLE ITAT .T HEREFORE HE COULD NOT PERSONALLY ATTEND THE HEARING BEFORE HONBLE ITAT. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID MONEY TO ALL CREDITORS OF THE DETAILS FILED ON RECORD BUT WRONGLY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 41(1) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961 . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR. NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE. WE NOTE THAT ITAT HAS PASSED AN ORDER. IN T HE SAID ORDER, IT IS DULY MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY SHRI S.L.JAIN. HE NCE, ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENTED IN AN EXPARTE ORDER IS TOTALLY WRONG AND UNSUSTAINABLE. MOREOVER, AS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBMISSION ABOVE, ASS ESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER SECTION 254(2). MOREOVER, AS EVIDENT ABOVE, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER. HENCE, THE SAME IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED. HENCE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY TH E ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3 MA NO.131/M/20 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 .10.2021 SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 25 .10.2021 THIRUMALESH , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT - CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI