UTTAMCHAND P. JAIN, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

MA 280/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4450 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “ जे” , ए ं म" #$ %& ं' े, े( े म) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ J ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.279 & 280/MUM/2020 [ Arising out of ITA NO.995 & 996/MUM/2019(A.Y.2009-10 & 2010-11)] Shri Uttamchand P. Jain, 6, Maheshwari Society, PM Road, Kankuwadi, Vile Parel (E), Mumbai 400 057. PAN: ACRPJ-0320-M ..... % * /Applicant बन म Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(5), Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 007 ..... % ' /Respondent % * - / Applicant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah % ' - /Respondent by : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand ु न ई . ' / Date of hearing : 25/03/2022 /0# . ' / Date of pronouncement : 06/05/2022 े&/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These Miscellaneous Applications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]has been filed by the assessee seeking recall of the order of Tribunal dated 14/02/2020 vide which the appeals of the assessee in ITA No.995/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2009-10 and ITA No.996/Mum/2019 for assessment year 2010-11 were dismissed. 2 MA NO.279 & 280/MUM/2020 2. Shri Bhupendra Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee fairly conceded that the assessee has wrongly formulated the grounds of appeal in Form No.36 for both the assessment years. The appeals have been filed in quantum proceedings, wherein addition has been made in the hands of assessee on account of bogus purchase. However, in Form No.36 the assessee has raised grounds challenging levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee taking cognisance of the grounds raised in the respective appeals. There is an apparent mistake at the end of the assessee in raising wrong grounds of the appeal. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee prayed that in the interest of natural justice the order dated 14/02/2020 may kindly be recalled and the appeals be fixed for adjudication on merits of the addition. The assessee shall also rectify mistake by filing revised grounds of appeal in both the impugned assessment years. 3. Per contra, Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand representing the Department vehemently opposed the rectification applications filed by the assessee. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the appeals have been rightly decided on the grounds raised by the assessee. 4. Both sides heard. The assessee is seeking recall of the order dated 14/02/2020. The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were dismissed for the reason that the grounds raised in the appeal and the issue in impugned order is incoherent. The appeals were filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) confirming addition made by Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. Whereas, in grounds of appeal the assessee had challenged levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act. It is evident that before filing Form No.36 before the Tribunal no care was taken by the assessee or his Authorized Representative to at least go through grounds raised vis-a-vis the issue decided by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. The grounds have been drafted in an absolute negligent and slipshod manner. The Tribunal has decided the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 holding that the grounds are 3 MA NO.279 & 280/MUM/2020 misconceived and incoherent to the issue discussed in the impugned order by CIT(A). In the interest of justice and fair admission of the mistake by the assessee in drafting grounds of appeal, we deem it appropriate to recall the order dated 14/02/2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has time and again emphasized that when substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 5. Before parting we would like to record that the negligence of the assessee and his Authorized Representative in filing botched grounds of appeal cannot be simply ignored. The mistake by assessee has wasted time of Bench and office resources, therefore, it is a fit case for levy of costs. Accordingly, cost of Rs.5,000/- for each appeal is imposed. Subject to payment of cost Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- for each of the appeals, these appeals shall be restored to their original number and be fixed for fresh hearing. The assessee shall deposit cost in accordance with Rule- 32A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 6. The Registry is directed to list the appeals for hearing in due course after intimating both sides. Before listing the appeals Registry to ensure that the direction for payment of costs by the assessee is complied with. 7. In the result, both Miscellaneous Applications by assessee are allowed in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open Court on Friday the 06 th day of May , 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (VIKAS AWASTHY) े( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 1 न ं /Dated 06/05/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 4 MA NO.279 & 280/MUM/2020 त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. */The Appellant , 2. % ' / The Respondent. 3. ु 2'( )/ The CIT(A)- 4. ु 2' CIT 5. 5 6 % ' न , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. 6 8$ 9 : /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai