KABRA BUILDERS . P. LTD, V. ITO 9(2)(2),

MA 20/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8753 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SHASTRI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, SMC , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO: 20/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF : ITA NO.4294/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M/S. KABHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 1 ST , JAIN CHAMBERS 577, S.V. ROAD BANDRA (W) MUMBAI-400 050. PAN NO.: AABCK 5641 D INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(2)(2) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING : 20.7.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.7.2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 2.12.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN ITA NO.4294/M/2010. IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL EXPARTE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR ANY ADJ OURNMENT APPLICATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED. THE DISPUTE RAISED WAS R EGARDING NATURE OF RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT INCOME HAD TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN PLACE OF BUSINESS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. MA NO.20/M/12 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4294/M/10 A.Y:05-06 2 2. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT NO COMPLIANCE COULD BE M ADE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 2.12.2011 AS THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN NOTE OF THE DATE OF HEARING DISPLAYED ON THE N OTICE BOARD. IT HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN REQUESTED THAT ORDER MAY BE RECALLED F OR FRESH HEARING. 3. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING T ODAY I.E. 20.7.2012, THE NOTICE FOR WHICH HAD BEEN SENT BY RPAD ON 13.6.2012 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTH ORITIES. THE NOTICE IS, THEREFORE, DEEMED TO BE SERVED. NEITHER SOM EONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN RECEIVED. AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, TH ERE HAD BEEN NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THERE FORE, CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPLICA TION. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STANDS REJ ECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.7.2012. (B.R. MITTAL) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20.7.2012. JV. MA NO.20/M/12 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4294/M/10 A.Y:05-06 3 COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.