SALE MOHAMMMED PADAMSEE & CO, MUMBAI V. PR.CIT-25, MUMBAI

MA 258/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2648 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

MA No 258/Mum/2021 In MA No.56/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'G' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] MA No 258/Mum/2021 In MA No.56/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2009-10 Sale Mohammed Padamsee & Co. .................. Appellant 4th Floor, Padamsee Galary, 77, Shivarkar Road, Wonawari, Pune 411 040 [PAN: ABVFS7235F] Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-25 Mumbai ................ Respondent Appearances by None for the applicant Mahita Nair for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2022 Date of pronouncement the order : 28.09.2022 ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this application the assessee applicant seeks a recall of the ex-parte order dated 17.09.2021, passed on the Miscellaneous Application No. 56/Mum/2020, u/s 254 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This miscellaneous application has been fixed on a large number of occasions during the last one year but none appeared for the assessee. Incidentally even the miscellaneous application order on which is sought to be recalled by this miscellaneous application was also decided ex- parte as the matter was fixed on a large number of occasions and none appeared for the assessee. It does not end there. Even the original appeal in respect of which the miscellaneous application in question was also decided ex-parte, as none appeared for the assessee despite a large number of opportunities having being given to the assessee. Today, when this application came up for hearing, the assessee was represented by a person who has stated that he is an uneducated (10 th MA No 258/Mum/2021 In MA No.56/Mum/2020 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 2 Standard failed) person working in the office of some associate of the assessee. He stated that he was only come to take an adjournment at the instruction of the assessee. All the shows the casual attitude of the assessee which is not conducive for disposal of the matter on merits. In any event, since the order impugned in the present miscellaneous application was passed u/s. 254 (2), this application is not maintainable. We therefore find this application as devoid of any legally sustainable merits and in any event not even perused by the assessee applicant. 3. In the result, miscellaneous application is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 28 th September, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Sandeep S Karhail Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 28 th September, 2022 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar/ Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai