SHAH RUPCHAND MEGHRAJ AND CO., V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 40,

MA 285/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5738 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOPDR
• Assessee Lawyers: G P MEHTAAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -DBENCH MUMBAI , , , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAWAN SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.285/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF / / IT(SS)A NO.92/MUM/2006, /BLOCK PERIOD-1.04.1996 TO 21.01.20003) M/S. SHAH RUPCHAND MEGHRAJ & CO. 327, DESAI HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR ABOVE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, JSS ROAD THAKURDWAR, MUMBAI-400 002. PAN:ACZPJ 1037 B VS. ACIT, CC-40 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400020. REV ENUE BY: M/S. POOJA SWAROOP-DR ASS ESSEE BY: SHRI G.P. MEHTA-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 23.06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: .06.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - VIDE HER REVISED APPLICATION,DATED 19/6/2017,THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22/08/2 014, THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) HAD FILED APPEALS I.E., IT(SS)A NO.42/MUM/2006 AND IT(S S)A NO.92/MUM/2006 RESPECTIVELY, THAT THE HEARING FOR THE APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.42/MU M/2006 WAS FIXED ON 22/08/2014, THAT THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER IN THE FIRST APPEAL,THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 22/08/2-14 THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECALLED THE ORDER, THAT SHE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND HENCE WERE DISPOSED OF TOGE THER, THAT LATER ON SHE CAME TO KNOW THAT THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS HEARD NEXT DAY I .E.26/06/2012 AND WAS DECIDED EX PARTE, THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THAT DATE OF HEA RING FOR NON APPEARANCE, THAT ABSENCE WAS UNINTENTIONAL,THAT THE ORDER DATED 28/06/2012 SHOUL D BE RECALLED. THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED AFFIDAVIT BY THE ASSESSEE,DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2017 WHEREIN SIMILAR AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED FACTS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION/AFFIDAVIT AND ST ATED THAT ABSENCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING (I.E. 26/06/2012). THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETIO N OF THE BENCH. MA-285/M/14-SHAH RUPCHAND 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT T HE MATTER WAS PLACED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 26/06/2012 (IT(SS)A NO.92/MUM/2006) , THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND MATTER WAS DECIDED WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE RE-CALL THE ORDER DATED 28/06/2012. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO PUT UP THE FILE BEFORE REGULAR BENCH FOR HEARING. AS A RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD , JUNE, 2017. 23, , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / PAWAN SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED :23.06.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.