MILLENIUM TELECOM, LTD, V. ITO WD 5(2)(3),

MA 259/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9102 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wholly owned subsidiary; Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B , MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI D. MANMOHAN, V.P. AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. M.A. NO. : 259/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5779/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. MILLENIUM TELECOM LIMITED C/O. M/S. VED JAIN & ASSOCIATES 33, FIRST FLOOR, BABAR ROAD, BENGALI MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 001 PAN NO: AADCM 3056 G VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3) M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JA IN DATE OF HEARING : 14 .09 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .09.2012 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5779/MUM/2010. 2. IN THE SAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF ANY REPRESENTATI VE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING BE ING 100% SUBSIDIARY OF M.A. NO : 259/MUM/2012 M/S. MILLENIUM TELECOM LIMITED 2 MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. THE COMPANY WAS NOT DOING MUCH ACTIVITIES AND WHICH WAS THE REASON THE POSTAL AUTH ORITIES COULD NOT CONTACT THE RIGHT PERSON AND THE NOTICE HAD BEEN RE TURNED UNSERVED. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS NOT AWARE OF THE FIXATION OF THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR NON COMPLIANCE. T HE DEFAULT WAS BECAUSE OF THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE AS SESSEE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECO RDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , RECALL THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5779/MUM/2010 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER WHICH WILL BE HEARD O N 11.02.2013. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, NO FORMAL NOTICE OF HEA RING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 5. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TO DAY I.E. 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( D. MANMOHAN ) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 14.09.2012 M.A. NO : 259/MUM/2012 M/S. MILLENIUM TELECOM LIMITED 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI