KULDEEP GLASS AND ALUMINIUM, MUMBAI V. ITO 23 (2)(4), MUMBAI

MA 149/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S N KABRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY , JM M.A. NOS. 149 TO 152/MUM/2021 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 7139 TO 7141/MUM/2018 AND 2171/MUM/2019) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2011-12) KULDEEP GLASS AND ALUMINIUM SHOP NO.16, HANSA VILLA OPP. VIJAY NAGAR, MULUND(W) MUMBAI-400 080 VS. ITO-23(2)(4) MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AAAFK6708M ( APPELLANT ) : ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RITESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.KABRA DATE OF HEARING : 24.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .09.2021 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASS ESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE EXPARTE COMMON ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 7 139 TO 7141/MUM/2018 AND 2171/MUM/2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 16.12.2020. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT DUE MISTAKE ABOUT THE MODE OF HEARING AT THE ITAT, WHIC H WAS VIRTUAL AND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAD MISTAKEN THE SAME FOR PHYSICAL HEARING , HE WAS UNABLE TO PRESENT IN THE VIRTUAL MODE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REPRESENT ED DURING THE HEARING. HENCE, IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED IN TERMS OF ITAT RULES. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AND CONSIDERING THE RE ASONABLE CAUSE ATTRIBUTED FOR NON- APPEARANCE OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THE ABOVE 2 MA NOS.149-152/M/21 EXPARTE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DESERVES TO BE RECAL LED ON THE TOUCHSTONE OF RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES 4. THE SAID RULE PROVIDE THAT WHERE, ON THE DAY FI XED FOR HEARING OR ON ANY OTHER DATE TO WHICH THE HEARING MAY BE ADJOURNED, THE APPELLANT D OES NOT APPEAR IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE APPEAL IS CAL LED ON FOR HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE R ESPONDENT: PROVIDED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED ABOVE AND THE APPELLANT APPEARS AFTERWARDS AND SATISFIES THE TRIB UNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED ON FO R HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL SHALL MAKE AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTORING THE APPEAL. 5. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IS DULY RECALLED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN NORMAL CO URSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 .09.202 1 SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 24 .09.2021 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, 3 MA NOS.149-152/M/21 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI