HAJI YAKUB USMAN SOPARIWALA, V. ACIT CEN CIR 24 & 26,

MA 19/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6462 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KESHAV B BHUJLE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD(AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) M.A. NO. 19/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1565/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05 SHRI HAJI YAKUB USMAN SOPARIWALA, 142, ERSKINE ROAD, NULL BAZAR, MUMBAI-400 003 PAN-AAAFH0220 P VS. THE ACIT, CENT. CIR. 24 & 26, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: KESHAV B. BHUJLE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. SINGH O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT SU BMITTED AS FOLLOWS: AFTER FILING THE APPEAL, NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. HOWEVER, ON 18.11.2010, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED AN ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL DT. 2.11.20 10 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON APPEARANCE. IT IS ST ATED IN THE SAID ORDER DT. 2.11.2010 THAT THE HEARING WAS FIXED O N 2.11.2010 AND THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TH ROUGH RPAD ON 24.9.2010. HOWEVER, NOTHING IS MENTIONED ON THE ORDER AS REGARDS THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. IT SEE MS THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST DATE OF HEARING. NOTICE WAS NOT SERV ED ON THE APPELLANT. APPELLANT ALSO VERIFIED FROM ITS RECORDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY SUCH NOTICE OF HEARING. APPELLANT HUMBLY STATES AND SUBMITS THAT THE SAID NO TICE FOR HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS SUCH NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. M.A. NO. 19/M/2011 2 IT IS ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE SAID ORDER DT. 2.11.201 0 THE APPELLANT REALIZED ABOUT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR. 3. WE FIND THAT THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY WE ACCEPT THE SAME. 4. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL THE ORDER DT. 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2010 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS .13 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 13 TH APRIL, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR H BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI M.A. NO. 19/M/2011 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTA TED ON: 31 . 3 .201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 31.3.2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT CO MES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______