Bhartiben S.Shah, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

MA 222/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7582 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , . , !' !' !' !' ! !! ! # # # # IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) $$ $$ $$ $$ ! ! ! ! (M.A.)NO.222/A/2011 : BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.95 TO 20.9 .01 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.02/AHD./2009) BHARTIBEN S. SHAH, BARODA ... . ( ! / APPLICANT) -VS- PAN: AFOPS 8896R ACIT, CIRCLE-5, BARODA ( %&'( / RESPONDENT) ! ) * ! /APPLICANT BY : SHRI SAMIR PARIKH, A.R. %&'( ) * ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, SR.D.R. + ) ' / DATE OF HEARING : 17/02/2012 ,- ) ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/02/2012 !. !. !. !. / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.09.2011 I N IT(SS)A NO.2/AHD/2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-1995 TO 20-0 -2001 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS- MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS- B.N.BHATTACHARJEE A ND OTHERS 118 ITR 461. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED T HAT THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE VIDE HER LETT ER DATED 20.09.2011. 2 M.A.NO.222-AHD-2011 THIS LETTER WAS SENT BY SPEED POST, WHICH THE APPLI CANT BELIEVED THAT IT WAS DELIVERED WELL IN ADVANCE BEFORE THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THE LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AND DU E RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE LETTER DISP ATCHED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY AND THEREFORE COUL D NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH FOR CONSIDERATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.09.2011 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 24.04.2011. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING IS INTIMATED TO BOTH THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOTICE NEED NOT ISSUED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. / !. ) ,- 0 1 17 / 02 /201 2 2 ) 3+ 4 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 17/02/2012 !. !. !. !. ) )) ) %$ %$ %$ %$ 5!$- 5!$- 5!$- 5!$-1 11 1- -- - 1. '( 2. %&'( 3. ; 4. ;- - 5. $>3 % , , 4 6. 3 A/ !. !, B/ D , 4 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S. 3 M.A.NO.222-AHD-2011