EAGLE IMPEX, V. ITO WD 24(1)(4),

MA 277/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9101 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KRISHNA MURTHY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, H, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM AND RAJENDRA SINGH, AM M.A. NO. 277/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5748/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04) M/S EAGLE IMPEX, FLAT NO. 401, MADHUVAN BUILDING, JITENDRA CROSS ROAD, NEAR PAREKH HALL, MALAD, MUMBAI 400 097. PAN: AAAFE 4976 B INCOME TAX OFFICER - 24(1)(4), PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 14- 09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-09-201 2 APPLICANT BY : SHRI DHARMES H SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. KRIS HNAMURTHY O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2003-04 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 5748/MUM/2010 DTD. 17-11-2011. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. 7-5- 2012 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OF MR. SUNIL VORA, PARTNER OF M/S EAGLE I MPEX OF MUMBAI STATED IN PARA 5 OF THE AFFIDAVIT AS UNDER:- 5. I STATE THAT IT APPEARS THAT DUE TO SOME CONFUS ION THE SAID NOTICE OF HEARING COULD NOT BE SERVED AND AS A RESULT THE REM ARK UNCLAIMED WAS PUT AND THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. MA 277/MUM/2012 2 IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN ASSESSEES MISC. APPLIC ATION SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT, THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L BE RECALLED, WHICH WAS NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO BY THE LD. D.R. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HA VING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD. 17-11-2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WI THOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 10-10-2012 . ACCORDINGLY THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-09-2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 14-09-2012. RK.: MA 277/MUM/2012 3 ``````````COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT , CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. DR D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI