AMBIT CAPITAL P.LTD, V. DCIT 4(1),

MA 313/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1458 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM . / MA NO. 313/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 103/MUM/2012) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) AMBIT CAPITAL PVT. LTD. AMBIT HOUSE, 449, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400 023 / VS. DY. CIT-4(1), 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.640, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ' ./# ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCP 6621 N APPLICANT : RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O. P. SINGH $ % & '( / DATE OF HEARING : 24.01.2014 )*+ & '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .01.2014 , / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS IN RESPECT OF AN EX PARTE ORDER U/S. 254(1) BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26.06.2013 IN THE ASSE SSEES CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MOVED AN APPLI CATION, STATING THAT THE NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, I.E., 11.06.2013 , WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY IT, SUPPORTING THE SAME BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.12.2013, PLACED ON RECORD. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. ON A PERUSAL OF THE R ECORD, IT IS FOUND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD INFERRED DUE COMMUNICATION TO THE ASSESSEE OF T HE DATE OF HEARING INASMUCH AS THE SAME WAS LISTED ON THE NOTICE BOARD ON A PRIOR DATE (I.E., 31.12.2012), ON WHICH DATE THE 2 MA NO. 313/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) AMBIT CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DY. CIT MATTER WAS POSTED FOR HEARING BUT THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES AVERMENT THAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN ANY SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON IT, I.E., FOR 11.06.2013, IS CORRECT. RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNALS RULES PROVIDE THAT WHERE AN APPELLANT SATISFIES THE TRIBUNAL AS T O SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, IT SHALL SET ASIDE THE EX PARTE ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN THOUGH THE IMPUGNED O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED FOLLOWING THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (BOM) , WE ONLY CONSIDER IT FIT AND PROPER THAT THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RES TORED FOR BEING HEARD AND DECIDED AFRESH. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ALSO, IN CONSULTATI ON WITH THE PARTIES, FIXED AT 11.03.2014 , DISPENSING WITH THE NEED FOR SEPARATE COMMUNICATION , AS CLARIFIED THEREAT. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 24, 2 014 SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % MUMBAI; - DATED : 24.01.2014 . ../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '. / THE APPLICANT 2. /0'. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ 1' ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. $ 1' / CIT CONCERNED 5. 45 /' 6 , ( 6+ , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 578 9% / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI