BUSEAU VERITAS INDIAN DIVISION, V. DDIT 3(2) (IT),

MA 238/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9496 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARD EEP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, L, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI R.S. SYAL, A.M. AND DINESH KUMAR AGAR WAL, JM M.A. NO. 238/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3238/MUM/2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) M/S BUREAU VERITAS INDIAN DIVISION, 6 TH FLOOR, MARWAH CENTRE, KISHANLAL MARWAH MARG, OFF SAKI VIHAR, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI- 400 072. PAN: AAACB1465H DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX- INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3(2), SCINDIA HOUSE, N.M. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 23- 11-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-11-201 2 APPLICANT BY : SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA 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. 2002-03 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 3238/MUM/2006 DTD. 21-8-2009. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. 3-4- 2012 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT DTD. 3-4-2012 OF MR. NARESH GUPTA, REGION AL CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE COMPANY STATED AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THEY COULDNT APPEAR ON THE DAY OF HEARING AS THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RETAINED BY THE AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE DEALING WITH TAX MATTERS WITH WHOM THE CONTRACT OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN TERMINATED. ON TERMINATION OF CONTRACT, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE DID NOT INFORM THE PENDING TAX MATTERS TO MANAGEMENT OF COMPANY WHICH HAS LEAD TO NON APPEARANCE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FORGIVENESS AND P ARDON FOR THIS UNINTENDED LAPSE. MA 238/MUM/2012 2 IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION, THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY 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. 21-8-2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WIT HOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 02-01-2013 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE MI SC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-11-2012. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 23-11-2012 RK.: MA 238/MUM/2012 3 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT , CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. DR L BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI