IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI , ! '!! !# , $ % BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. 268/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 8740/MUM/2010, AY 2007-08 SHRI MOHAMMED SHAFI GEHLOT, SACHIN HOUSE, 18, DADABHAI ROAD, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI -400 053 PAN: ABUPG 5090 K VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 20(3)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MS AASIFA KHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. SINGH /DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-12-2013 & O R D E R '!! !# , : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: IN THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA), THE EX PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2013 IS FOR THE WANT OF PROSECUTION. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS, NOW, FILED THIS MA ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION SIGNED BY M.S. GEHLOT, THE ASSE SSEE, WHO HAS GIVEN THE REASONS FOR NON-ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I .E., 26.03.2013, WHICH READS AS UNDER: (I) THE APPLICANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, THE APPLICANT HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II) THE APPLICANT IS AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. THE APPLICANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE APPLICANT RESIDES AT THE ABOVE MENTION ED ADDRESS WITH HIS FAMILY, WHICH CONSISTS OF 12 MEMBERS. THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY ARE NOT VERY EDUCATED. THE APPLICANT HAS UNDERGONE TWO ANGIOPLASTY S URGERIES ON HIS HEARD, DUE TO WHICH, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN AND OUT OF THE HOSPITAL MANY TIMES. SHRI MOHAMMED SHAFI GEHLOT MA NO. 268 /MUM/2013 2 (III) THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE NOTICE OF HEARING O F THE SAID APPEAL WAS SENT, HE WAS NOT AT HIS RESIDENCE AND THE SAID NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY ONE OF THE MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY. AS HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT MU CH EDUCATED THEY DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROCEDURES/IMPORTANCE OF SUCH NOTICES. THE FAMILY MEMBER WHO COLLECTED THE NOTICE KEPT THE NOTICE ALONG WIT H THE OTHER PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY HIM AND FORGOT TO INTIMATE THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE. (IV) UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE, AS THE APPLICANT WAS NOT AWARE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING HE WAS NEITHER ABOVE TO ATTEND THE H EARING NOR FORWARD THE NOTICE TO HIS TAX CONSULTANT FOR FURTHER COURSE OF ACT ION. THEREFORE, ON THE DATE OF HEARING THE APPEAL WENT UNATTENDED AND WAS DISMISSED FO R NON-PROSECUTION. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT T HAT HE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN LISTED FOR HEARING ON 26/03/2 013. ON ENQUIRING WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HE CAME TO KNOW THAT A NOTICE HAD B EEN RECEIVED. THEREAFTER, THE APPLICANT APPROACHED HIS TAX CONSULTANT FOR FURTHER COURSE OF ACTION. 2. WE FIND THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY M.S. GEHLOT AR E REASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER AND FIXED THE DATE OF A PPEAL FOR HEARING ON 17.03.2014. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT HENCE, NO SEPARATE NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED ON EITHER OF THE PARTIES. 3. THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( ) ('!! !# ) $ (SANJAY ARORA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI : 6 TH DECEMBER, 2013 / COPY TO:- 1) / THE APPLICANT. 2) / THE RESPONDENT. 3) ( ) - 31 MUMBAI / THE CIT (A)-31, MUMBAI. 4) XX, MUMBAI / THE CITXX, MUMBAI, 5) !' #$ % , #$ , &'% / THE D.R. B BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) '() * COPY TO GUARD FILE. SHRI MOHAMMED SHAFI GEHLOT MA NO. 268 /MUM/2013 3 +,- / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / [ . / / '0 #$ , &'% DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *23/ . . * CHAVAN, SR. PS