HALDYM GLASS LTD, V. ITO WD 9(2)(4),

MA 273/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9438 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K H KUTTY

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H MUMBAI , . . BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 273/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6058/M/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 M/S. HALDYN GLASS LTD., 9, GAYATRI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, MAROL NAKA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 059 PAN: AAACH 0411 P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2)1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PIYUSH CHATURVEDI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.H. KUTTY ! '#$ / DATE OF HEARING : 12 -10-2012 %&' ! '#$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -10-2012 () / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2004-05 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6058/MUM/2010 DTD. 28-03-2012. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. 04-05-2 012 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT DTD. 24-04-2012 OF MR. NARENDRA DEJOO SHETTY, DIREC TOR OF THE COMPANY M/S. HALDYN GLASS LIMITED, MUMBAI, RESIDENT OF 12/B, BALMORAL H ALL, 7, MOUNT MERRY ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI-400 050 INTER ALIA STATED TH AT WHEN THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 22-03-2012 THROUGH NOTICE BOARD, AS IT ME NTIONED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE SAME DID NOT COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBM ITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. MA NO. 273/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6058/M/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (DR) DID NOT OBJECT TO THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SATISFIE D ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDING LY THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD. 28-03-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PAR TIES HAVE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 04-12-2012 AS INFORMED IN THE OPE N COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12-10-2012. SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( / RAJENDRA ) (* / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ (* / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, +( DATE: 12 TH OCTOBER, 2012 TNMM () () () () ! !! ! ' ' ' ' ,'' ,'' ,'' ,'' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE ' ' //TRUE COPY// () () () () / BY ORDER, - -- - / . . . . DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI