BHANSALI ENGINEERIANG POLYMERS ALTD, V. ITO WD 8(1)(2),

MA 171/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3620 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, A M M.A. NO.171/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.535/MUM/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. BHANSALI ENGINEERING POLYMERS LTD., BHANSALI HOUSE, PLOT NO.5A, OFF VEERA DESAI ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 053. PAN: AAACB 3368 H VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3)(2), MUMBAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY BY : SHRI B.L. DASHARDA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHD. USMAN O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE HAS SOU GHT RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.01.2010 IN ITA NO. 535/MUM /2009 THROUGH WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD A TTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON EARLIER OCCASION AND ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E. 18.0 11.2009 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.01.2010 A ND NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. SINCE NO NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT A FRESH NOTICE OF HEA RING WILL BE ISSUED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT INADVERTENTLY NOBODY ATTENDED THE MATTE R AND THE RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING TAX DEMAND FOR THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS CONNECTION AN AFFIDAVIT SW ORN ON 15.3.2010 WAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING HAS BEEN DENIED, IT WAS PRAYED THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED F OR FRESH HEARING. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION. MANO.196/M/10 M/S.PRAFUL METAL WORKS 2 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE S ATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE REPRESENTATION BECAUSE OF THE REASON S WHICH HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 25.01.2010 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE HEARING OF THE APPEA L ON 5 TH JULY, 2010. THE ASSESSEE SHALL TAKE NOTICE FROM THIS ORDER ITSELF AS NO SEPA RATE NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TO-DAY I.E. 07.05.2010. SD. SD. (D.MANMOHAN) (T. R. SOOD) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 7 TH MAY, 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT- VIII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-VIII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR B BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI