MEHTA FINSTOCK P.LTD, V. DCIT 4(3),

MA 230/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9064 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARD EEP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, PRESIDENT AND DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM M.A. NO. 230/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3116/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) M/S MEHTA FINSTOCK PVT. LTD., 612, ARUN CHAMBERS, TARDEO, MUMBAI 400 034. PAN: AAACK2231L DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, 4(3), 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 649, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 31- 08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-08-201 2 APPLICANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KHANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMARDEEP O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 3116/MUM/2011 DTD. 24-2-2012. 2. IN MISC. APPLICATION DTD. NIL IT HAS BEEN SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING. IT WAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED ON THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITI ES LTD. IN ITA NO. 3111 OF 2009 DTD. 21-10-2011 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE FOR PAYMENT OF TRANSACTION C HARGES, V-SAT CHARGES AND LEASE LINE CHARGES. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK MA 230/MUM/2012 2 SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA) THE ISSUE OF PAYMENT OF V-S AT CHARGES AND LEASE LINE CHARGES WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED OR IN ALTERNATIVE THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD MAY BE RECTIFIED. 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 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED WHICH WAS NOT 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. 24-02-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WI THOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 05-11-2012 . ACCORDINGLY THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2012. SD/- S D/- (G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 31 ST AUGUST,, 2012. RK.: MA 230/MUM/2012 3 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