RAJA VIJAY MANWANI, V. DCIT 20(2),

MA 21/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4333 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI D BENCH , . . , BEFORE S/SH. & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & C.N. PRASAD,JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.21/MUM/2016 /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.3914/MUM/2012) SHRI RAJU VIJAY MANWANI FLAT NO.3, EMPIRE BUILDING, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400 053. PAN: AACPM 5128 P VS. DCIT 20(2), MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY :SHRI B.S. BIST /ASSESSEE BY :SHRI JITENDRA SINGH & MS. NEHA PAR ANJPE / DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2016 / ORDER PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE HIS APPLICATION, DATED 19.01.2016, THE ASSESSE E HAS STATED THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES WERE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT.15.10.201 3, THAT SAME HAVE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI DATED 30.03.2012, THAT N ONE APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY APPLYING THE CASE OF MU LTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSES SEE, THAT SHE DID NOT INFORM THE ASSESSEE,THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARI NG, THAT HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SCHEDULED DATE OF HEARING. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING BEFORE US THE AUTH ORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE APP LICATION.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SCHEDULED DATE I.E. 15.10.13, THEREFORE, RECALLING OUR ORDER OF THE SAME DATE (I.E. 15.10.20 13), WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO PUT UP THE MATTER BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH FOR FRESH HEARING O N 05/07/2016. AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE MA-21/M/16-RAJU VIJAY(A/O/OITA3914/12)07-08 2 BEEN INFORMED REGARDING THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING IN OPEN COURT, NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE SENT TO THE PARTIES. AS A RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ! & ' . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 4 TH MAY,2016. 04 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N. PRASAD) ( + / RAJENDRA) ,' - / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI, /DATE: 04.05.2016 . . . JV.SR.PS. 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , D , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.