ALD AUOTOMOTIVE P. LTD, V. DCIT CIR 15(1),

MA 137/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0902 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SALMAN KHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: BRIJMOHAN POORANMAL AGA RWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM MA NO.137/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.309/MUM/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. 13 TH FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBER IV, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1), ROOM NO.203, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 ./ ! ./PAN/GIR NO. AAFCA 0924 K ( ' # /APPELLANT ) : ( $ # / RESPONDENT ) ' # % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI BRIJMOHAN POORANMAL AGARWAL $ # & % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. SALMAN KHAN ' ()* & + / DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2013 ,-. & + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.09.2013 / / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSE E AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S. 254(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (T HE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 27.02.2013 IN ITS CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. PER ITS SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, FOLLOWING A NUMBER OF DECISION S, INCLUDING BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MOV ED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PER AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.04.2013 BY SHRI SUVAJIT K. WH OLE, THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR OF MA.NO.137/M/13 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 2 THE APPLICANT-COMPANY, AVERRING THAT ON BOTH THE OC CASIONS ON WHICH THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY IT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS INS TANT APPEAL THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN DULY FORWARDED TO ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, M /S. BORKAR & MUZUMDAR, MUMBAI. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE DATE OF HEARING HAVING BEEN COMMUNICATED PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE APPEAL ITSELF, THE SAME WAS MISSED-OUT THROUGH INADVERTENCE. ON THE SECOND OCCASION, THERE WAS AGAIN A MISTAKE B Y THE STAFF OF ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN NOTING THE DATE OF HEARING AS 27.03 .2013 INSTEAD OF THE CORRECT DATE OF 27.02.2013. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE , THE NON APPEARANCE ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS WAS PURELY UNINTENTIONAL, AND CAUSED FOR THE FAULT OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. THE APPELLANT, IT IS FURTHER SUBMI TTED, IS EARNEST IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL, WHICH MAY, THEREFORE, BE RESTORED BY RECALL ING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, PRAYING FOR THE CONDONATION OF THE NON-APPEARANCE, REGRETTI NG THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. THOUGH, IN OUR VIEW THE AFFIDAVIT FORMING PART OF THE PETITION, AN D ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT MAKES OUT A CASE, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN BY THE ASSESSEES AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVES, AT WHOSE END LAPSES HAVE BEEN STATED TO HAVE OCCURRED, LEADING T O THE NON-REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, OR AT LEAST ALSO FORMED PART OF THE ASSES SEES APPLICATION, WE ARE, NEVERTHELESS, INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE REASONS FOR TH E SAME. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANT IAL JUSTICE WHERE THE BONA FIDES ARE OTHERWISE NOT IN DOUBT, AS APPEARS IN THE INSTA NT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR A RECALL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. F URTHER, THOUGH WE WOULD NORMALLY BE INCLINED TO LEVY A COST FOR THE LAPSES; THE ASSE SSEE ALSO HAVING NOT FOLLOWED-UP THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH I TS COUNSEL ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS, CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE REASONS FOR T HE SAME, WE ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST TO THE LD. AR NOT TO DO SO IN VIEW OF A GENUINE MIS TAKE AT THE END OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WHICH REASON/S WE HAVE ACCEPTED. WE ACCORDINGLY RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER, FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE A SSESSEES APPEAL ON 28.10.2013 . NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WOULD FOLLOW THIS REC ALL ORDER; THE SAID DATE HAVING BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. WE DECIDE ACCORD INGLY. MA.NO.137/M/13 (A.Y. 2005-06) ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 SD/- SD/- (B. R. MITTAL) (SANJAY ARORA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' * MUMBAI; 0( DATED : 20.09.2013 ).(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS !'#$ %$&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' # / THE APPELLANT 2. $ # / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' 1 ( ' ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' 1 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 4)56 $ (78 , ' + 78. , ' * / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 69: ;* / GUARD FILE ' / BY ORDER, (/') * (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' * / ITAT, MUMBAI