BERMACO ENEGY SYSTEMS LTD, V. ACIT 10(3),

MA 314/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7042 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALEXANDER CHANDY
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS SANJUKTA CHOWDHURY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, I, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND RAJENDRA SINGH(A .M ) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 314/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2356/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) M/S BERMACO ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD., D-73/1, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC TURBHE, NAVI MUMBAI-400705 PAN: AAACB2727N ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 10(3), MUMBAI. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 26.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.8.2011 APPLICANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD KUMA R PARIDA AND MRS.SA NJUKTA CHOWDHURY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ALEXANDER CH ANDY O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 2.2.2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2356/MUM/2010. 2. THE APPLICANT, IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 21.3.2011 SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 31.5.201 1 VIDE PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 OF THE AFFIDAVIT STATED ON O ATH : 3. THAT I NOR MY COMPANY HAD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE OF HEARING. MA NO. 314/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2356/MUM/2010 (AYEAR:2006-07) 2 4. THAT CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER WAS HEARD EX-PARTE AND DUE OUR CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL WE COULD NOT HIRE THE SERVICES OF OUR COUNSEL. 3. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT AS PER AD CARD AVAI LABLE ON RECORD, THE NOTICE OF DATE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON 13.1.2011, THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT DAT ED 12.8.2011 AND VIDE PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 OF IT STAT ED ON OATH: 3. THAT IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY MY STAFF OF MY ASSOCIATE CONCERN, NAMELY M/S FLEMINGO DUTY FREE SHOP P.LTD., WHICH COULD NOT COME TO MY NOTICE AT A LL. IN FACT, WE SEARCHED THE ENTIRE OFFICE BUT FAILED T O TRACE OUT THE NOTICE; 4. THAT BECAUSE OF THAT I COULD NOT HIRE THE SERVI CES OF MY COUNSEL NOR COULD INTIMATE MY C.A. BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED, WHICH WAS SERIO USLY OBJECTED TO BY THE LEARNED D.R. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDING LY THE EX MA NO. 314/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2356/MUM/2010 (AYEAR:2006-07) 3 PARTE ORDER DATED 2.2.2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I S RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 16.11.2011. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.8.2011 SD SD (RAJENDRA SINGH) (D.K.AG ARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2011 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI