UNI DERITEND LTD, V. ACIT 1(3),

MA 336/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7035 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G P TRIVEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY I THAKARE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) & SHRI J SUDHAKAR RED DY (AM) M.A. NO. 336/MUM2011 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 1371/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) UNI DERITEND LIMITED LIBERTY BUILDING SIR VITHALDAS THACKERSEY MARG NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI-400 020. VS. ACIT 1(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. PAN/GIR NO. : AAACU0028K ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY I THAKARE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G. P. TRIVEDI DATE OF HEARING : 16.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.9.2011 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, (AM) :- BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE S EEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.3.2011, ON THE GROUN D THAT IT WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPL AINING THAT THE PERSON IN-CHARGE, WHO WAS ATTENDING TAX MATTERS OF THE COM PANY FOR OVER 15 YEARS, UNDERWENT SURGERY AND IN THAT PROCESS HE HAD NOT MADE PROPER ARRANGEMENT FOR APPOINTING A PERSON TO APPEAR BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. HE PRAYED THAT RECALL OF THE ORDER BY INVOKING PROVISO OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS. 2. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE CONVINCE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, FROM APPEARING B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE IN TERMS OF PROVISO OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 31.3.2011. THE REGI STRY IS DIRECTED TO UNI DERITEND LIMITED 2 POST THE CASE FOR FRESH HEARING ON 17.11.2011. AS T HIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING SH ALL BE ISSUED TO EITHER PARTY. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS HERE BY ALLOWED. SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2011. COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT, CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI PS