PBJ INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 9 (2)-4, MUMBAI

MA 233/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6247 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: MAMTA PARMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JM) & B.R. BASKARAN (AM) M.A. NO. 233 /MUM/20 17 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 316/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) M/S. PBJ INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 72, BCD, KANDIV ALI GOVT. IND. ESTATE, KANDIVALI CHARKOP, KANDIVALI (E) MUMBAI - 400 067. PAN : AAACP2508H V S . ITO 9(2)(4) MUMBAI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) A SSESSEE BY MS. MAMTA PARMAR DEPARTMENT BY MS. POOJA SWAROOP DATE OF HEARING 16 . 0 2 . 201 8 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT 16 . 0 2 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 316/MUM/2013 EX - PARTE, WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL AP PEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY SOME OTHER COUNSEL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED PRESENT COUNSEL FOR DEALING WITH THE MATTERS RELATING TO A.Y. 2010 - 11 ONWARDS. T HE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SEN T NOTICE OF HEARING RECEIVED FROM THE TRIBUNAL TO THE PRESENT COUNSEL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT INSTRUCTED THE COUNSEL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE APPEAL FILED FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10, THE LEARNED COUNSEL TOOK THE VIEW THAT TH E APPEAL WILL BE RE PRESENTED BY THE EARLIER CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. DUE TO THIS CONFUSION, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH LED TO PASSING OF EX - PARTE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NON - APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FOR GENUINE REASONS AND 2 ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE FOUND F AULT IN THIS MATTER. A CCORDINGLY SHE PRAYED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER. 3. WE HEARD LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING . ACCORDINGLY, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES , WE RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ALSO DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN THE NORMAL COURSE UNDER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES . 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 . 0 2 .201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (MAHAVIR SINGH ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 16 / 0 2 / 20 1 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FO RWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR P RIVATE S ECRETARY PS ITAT, MUMBAI