RENFRO INDIA P. LTD, V. ITO 10(3),

MA 182/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9114 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJARSHI DWIVEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: SATENDRA PANDEY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM AND N.K. BILLAIYA , AM M.A. NO. 182/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7076/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) M/S RENFRO INDIA PVT. LTD., 609, MAHALAXMI CHAMBERS, 22, BHULABHAI DESAI ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 015. PAN: AAACK2518C INCOME TAX OFFICER -10(3)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 03- 08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-08-201 2 APPLICANT BY : SHRI K. GOPA L & SHRI SATENDR A PANDEY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDI O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2004-05 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 7076/MUM/2008 DTD. 27-1-2012. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. NIL INTER ALIA SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- V. ON 24/01/2012, THE APPLICANTS COUNSEL APPEARED BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH AND SUBMITTED THAT THE KERALA HIGH COURTS DE CISION IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE APPLICANTS CASE AND THE ISSUE IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. VS. DCIT (2010) 325 ITR 102 (B OM), WHICH NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE APPLICANTS COUNSEL SOUG HT ADJOURNMENT. THE HONBLE BENCH KEPT BACK THE MATTER TO PLACE THE ADJ OURNMENT LETTER IN WRITING. MA 182/MUM/2012 2 VI. THE APPLICANTS COUNSEL REQUESTED HIS JUNIOR TO DO THE NEEDFUL BEFORE THE BENCH RAISES AND RUSHED TO HIGH COURT AS HE HAD SOME MATTER HIGH ON THE BOARD. UNFORTUNATELY, MR. SATENDRA PANDEY, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO MOVE AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, COULD NOT BE ABLE TO F ILE THE SAME AS HE WAS HELD UP BEFORE ANOTHER BENCH. VII. THE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE BENCH MAY BE PLEASED TO APPRECIATE THAT DUE TO THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE FOR NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT. THUS, THE ORDER DAT ED 27/01/2012 MAY BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITTED IN THE MISC. APPL ICATION, FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NOW THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BLA CK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD. IN INCOME TAX APPEAL LODGING NO. 1237 OF 2011 DATED APRIL 9, 2012. HOWEVER, HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ORDER IS RECALL ED WHICH WAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HA VING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD. 27-1-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WI THOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 25-09-2012 . ACCORDINGLY THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. MA 182/MUM/2012 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/ ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 3 RD AUGUST, 2012. RK.: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT , CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. DR D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI