PRAWALIA ESTATES P. LTD, V. ITO WD 9(2)(4),

MA 26/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0071 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES K, MUMBAI .. , ! ' ## , $ !, % BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM && !' ./ MA NO.26/MUM/2012 ( )*+ , / ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7454/MUM/2007) ( $' - $' - $' - $' - / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-2005) M/S.PRAMILA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED HAPPY HOME, 244 WATERFIELD ROAD BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI 400 009. PAN : AAACP2285R. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(2)(4) MUMBAI. ( ! / // / APPLICANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( ./01/ RESPONDENT) ! 2 22 2 3 3 3 3 / APPLICANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL RANJAN ./01 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN ' 2 + / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 22.02.2013. 45- 2 + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2013. !6 !6 !6 !6 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FO R THE RECALLING OF THE EX PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2009 IN ITA NO.7454/MUM/2007 FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. 2. THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE MA NO.26/MUM/2012 M/S.PRAMILA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED. 2 ASSESSEE DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS. IT WAS, THEREFOR E, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MANOJ VASUDE V WADHWA, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION. THE LEARNED D.R. DID NOT RAISE ANY SER IOUS OBJECTION TO IT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASON S FOR THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAK EN UP FOR HEARING BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 12 TH MARCH, 2013. NO SEPARATE NOTICE NEED BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO THIS EFFECT WAS MADE IN THE OPEN COURT AND THE LEAR NED A.R. HAS WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SEPARATE NOTICE. 4. 7 +8 ! 2 && !' + 2 '+ 9: ; IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2013. !6 2 45- &-+ !6 2 .$+=& >&-+ !6 2 .$+=& >&-+ !6 2 .$+=& >&-+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPLICANT. 2. ./01 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ? () / THE CIT(A) - IX, MUMBAI. 4. ? / CIT 5. &B# .$+$' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. #C D / GUARD FILE. !6' !6' !6' !6' / BY ORDER, /&+ .$+ //TRUE COPY// ) ) ) )/ // /9 ' 9 ' 9 ' 9 ' ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI