RAMJI R GUPTA, MUMBAI V. CIT-24, MUMBAI

MA 268/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1125 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JM) M.A. NO. 268/MUM/2020 IN I.T.A. NO. 4364/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) RAMJI R. GUPTA 215, SHIVAM CHAMBERS S.V. ROAD GOREGAON WEST MUMBAI-400 104. PAN : AABPG1959P VS. CIT-31 PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI-400 051. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN DEPARTMENT BY MS. SHREEKALA PARDESHI DATE OF HEARING 12.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.03.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4364/MUM/2018 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 VIDE ORDER DATED 4.9.2019. 2. IN THE SAID ORDER THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THERE W AS DELAY OF 1890 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND NO CONDONATION PETITION WAS O N RECORD AND THAT NOBODY APPEARED DESPITE NOTICE BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES THE ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE AS TIME BARRED. NOW THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED CONDONATION PETITIO N BUT THE SAME WAS ATTACHED IN ANOTHER APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENC E THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ITAT WHEN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL WAS HEARD. 3. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE NOTE THAT THERE W AS ANOTHER APPEAL PENDING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1633/M UM/2016 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. BOTH THE APPEALS WERE CONSOLIDATED FOR HEARING ON 2 19.6.2019. IN THESE BACKGROUNDS, WE FIND COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CONDONATION APPLICATION MIGHT HAVE BE EN MISSED OUT BY THE ITAT. 4. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, UPON HEARING BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE RECALL THE AFORESAID EX-PARTE ORDER OF T HE ITAT. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE SAME SHALL BE CONSIDERED UPON HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN NORMAL COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9.3.2021. SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (SHAMIM YA HYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09/03/2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI