CHANDRAKANT SHIVKAR, V. ITO WD 21(2)(1),

MA 339/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7069 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANTAM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: S S PHADKAR; BH ARAT H MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL (JM) AND RAJENDRA SINGH(A .M ) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.339/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2364/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04) SHRI CHANDRAKANT P SHIVKAR E-7, ADJIJANTA HSG. SOCIETY, BEHIND H.P.PETROL PUMP, SION, MUMBAI-400022. PAN: AAJPS5241D INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(1), PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI-400051 APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 12.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.8.2011 APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.S.PHADKAR AND BH ARAT H.MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.SHANTAM BOSE O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE EX PARTE ORDER DATED 9.5.2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.2364/MUM/2010 2. THE APPLICANT, IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION INTERALIA, STATED THAT (PARA 4): THE APPELLANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME CONFUSION REGARDING THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. WHETHER IT WAS 9.5.2011 OR 16.5.2011 AS RECORDED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL IN HIS DIARY. O N REALIZING THIS CONFUSION THE APPELLANT HAD SENT BY MA NO.339/MUM/2011 (AY:2003-04) 2 REGISTERED LETTER DATED 9.5.2011 AN APPLICATION REQUESTING THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HEARING FIXED O N 9.5.2011. A COPY OF THE SAID LETTER IS ENCLOSED HER EWITH FOR READY REFERENCE AND RECORD. THE APPELLANT SUBM ITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID CONFUSION REGARDING T HE DATE OF HEARING I.E. WHETHER 9.5.2011 OR 16.5.2011 AS NOTED BY THE APPELLANTS COUNSEL IN HIS DIARY, NOB ODY COULD ATTEND THE HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 9.5.2011. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT FOR THE AFORES AID FACTS WHICH WERE BEYOND THE APPELLANTS CONTROL, TH E HONBLE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE EX-PARTE ORDER DISMISS ING THE APPEAL 3. 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 NOT S ERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO BY THE LEARNED D.R. 4. 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 PARTE ORDER DATED 9.5.2011 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I S RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 14.11.2011. MA NO.339/MUM/2011 (AY:2003-04) 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.8.2011. SD SD (RAJENDRA SINGH) (D. K.AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 12 TH AUGUST, 2011 SRL: COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI