HASTIMAL J JAIN, V. ITO WD 14(1)(2),

MA 298/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7058 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCONTANT MEMBER MA NOS.298 AND 299/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.910 AND 911/M/2010 FOR A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 HASITMAL J. JAIN, PLOT NO.A-5, CROSS ROAD B, M.I.D.C., ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI -400 093 ....... APPLICANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1)(2), MUMBAI ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AEXPS 4207 A APPLICANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARTHASARATHI NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 02.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.09.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESS EES APPEAL BEING ITA NO.910 AND 911/MUM/2010 DATED 25.05.2010 MAY BE RECALLED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATIONS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 200 0-01 AND 2001- 02 BEING ITA NOS.910 & 911/MUM/2010 AND THE SAID AP PEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF DISMISSING THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 2 5.05.2010 ON THE MAS 298 & 299/MUM/2011 HASITMAL J. JAIN 2 REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTING THE APPEALS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED A NOTICE OF HEARING AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE HEARING. 4. WE FIND THAT POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE RETURNED BA CK THE NOTICES SENT TO THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE WITH THE REMARKS NO T KNOWN. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE ADDR ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, EVEN THOUGH POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE RETURNED THE NOTICES WITH T HE REMARK NOT KNOWN, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT PR OPERLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.910 AND 911/MUM/2010 DATED 25.05.2010 AN D RESTORE BOTH THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON MERIT. BOTH THE AP PEALS ARE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.10.2011 AND NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEA RING WILL BE ISSUED TO BOTH THE PARTIES AS THE DATE OF THE HEARI NG IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2ND SEPTEMBER , 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)CONCERNED ..MUMBAI, 4) THE CIT- CONCERNED ..MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN MAS 298 & 299/MUM/2011 HASITMAL J. JAIN 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 02.09.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02.09.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER