KEVAL H SETH, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 324/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by Mr. Keval H. Seth, seeking the recall of an ex-parte order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The application was necessitated by the non-appearance of the assessee's authorized representative during the scheduled hearing due to health issues, despite an adjournment request. The Tribunal initially recorded the presence of a different representative, leading to an ex-parte decision. Upon review of the circumstances and the affidavit provided by the assessee's counsel, the Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and the genuine health-related absence, thus recalling the earlier order and scheduling a new hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136459 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘SMC’ BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) M.A.No. 324/Mum/2022 in I.T.A. No. 418/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2007-08) Mr. Keval H. Seth 17-D, Malabar Apartments Nepeancy Road Mumbai-400 026. PAN : AFBPS4180H V s. ITO Ward 16(2)(1) Matru Mandir Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri J.P. Purohit Department by Dr. Samuel Pitta D ate of He a rin g 23.12.2022 D ate of P r on ou nc em ent 08.03.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of the order dated 1.4.2022 passed by the Tribunal for A.Y. 2007-08 mentioned in the caption above. 2. The Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that he was authorised to represent the appeal of the assessee and he actually could not appear on the date of hearing of the appeal, i.e. on 28.3.2022, when the appeal was heard. He submitted that he was not well and advised bed rest during that period of time. Accordingly, the assessee moved an application dated 25.3.2022 seeking adjournment of the case on the date of hearing. He submitted that the hearing of the appeal took place through video conference mode and his colleague Mr. Stany Saldanha, Chartered Accountant attended the hearing though the computer belonging to Ld A.R to seek adjournment. He did not argue the case. It is pertinent to note that the name shown in the Mr. Keval H. Seth 2 computer screen was “Jaypee”. However, the bench did not grant adjournment and treated the appeal as heard. In the order passed by the Tribunal, the name of the representative has been marked as “Jaypee”. Accordingly, the Learned AR submitted that the Tribunal, in effect, has passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. He further submitted that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in not appearing before the bench on the date of hearing. Accordingly, he prayed for recall of the order. 4. I notice that the order of the Tribunal has marked the attendance of a person named “Jaypee” on behalf of the assessee. Hence, the Bench directed the Ld A.R to furnish an affidavit in this regard. The Learned authorised representative with his full name “Shri Jagdamba Prasad Purohit” has filed an affidavit dated 24.11.2022, wherein he has stated above mentioned facts. Copy of the said affidavit was forwarded to learned Departmental Representative who was present at the time of hearing for his comments. The said Ld DR has filed a letter dated 22.12.2022, wherein he has stated that learned counsel of the assessee was not prepared to argue the case on merits. 4. On careful consideration of the affidavit filed by the assessee, reply filed by learned Departmental Representative, averment made in the miscellaneous petition and argument of the counsel; I am of the view that the Tribunal has passed the order ex-parte without hearing the assessee. I also notice that learned representative of the assessee could not appear before the Tribunal for sufficient reasons, meaning thereby, there was sufficient cause for the assessee in not presenting the case on the date of hearing. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers granted to the Tribunal under rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 I recall the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Keval H. Seth 3 5. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to post this appeal for fresh hearing in due course under intimation to the parties. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 08.03.2023. Sd/- (B.R. BASAKARAN) Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 08/03/2023 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai