SHRI. MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL, Mumbai V. ACIT 21(2), Mumbai

MA 263/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6224 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY SETHI

Judgement Text

1 MAS 263 & 264-MUM-2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA. NOS 263 & 264/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS 614 & 615/MUM/2020) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15) SHRI MADHAV PRASAD AGGARWAL MATULYA CENTRE, A-2, GROUND FLOOR SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, MUMBAI-400 013 PAN : AABPA6137H VS ACIT,CIR.21(2), MUMBAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI S.L. JAIN RESPONDENT BY SHRI SANJAY SETHI (DR) DATE OF HEARING 15-01-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/01/2021 O R D E R PER SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY: THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF ORDER DATED 13-03- 2020 PASSED IN ITA NOS.614 & 615/MUM/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED, DUE TO LONG GAP BETWEEN DATE OF NOTICE AND DATE OF HEARING, BY MISTAKE AND OVERSIGHT THE DATE OF HEARING COULD NOT BE NOTED IN THE DIARY. HENCE, ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO REPRESENT THE CASE. AS A RESULT OF WHICH, THE APPEALS WERE DECIDED EXPARTE. 2 MAS 263 & 264-MUM-2020 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED, DUE TO EX PARTE DISPOSAL OF APPEALS CERTAIN FACTS COULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, HE REQUESTED FOR RECALL OF THE EXPARTE ORDER AND GIVING A CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE EFFECTIVELY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE NON-APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEES AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DUE TO GENUINE REASONS. THEREFORE, IN EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED UNDER RULE 24 OF INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, WE RECALL ORDER DATED 13-03-2020 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 614 & 615/MUM/2019 AND RESTORE THE APPEALS TO THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEALS FOR HEARING IN REGULAR COURSE UPON INTIMATION TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27/01/2021. SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 27/ 01/2021. PAVANAN, SR.P.S (ON CONTRACT) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONENT. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. 4. THE CIT 5. D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER I.T.A.T., MUMBAI.