M/S. S.K.VENTURES, MUMBAI V. DCIT , CPC, , BANGALORE

MA 339/MUM/2023

AI Insights

M/s. S.K. Ventures filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall an ex-parte order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed their appeal. The dismissal was due to the non-appearance of the assessee's counsel, who was engaged in proceedings at the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Tribunal acknowledged that the representative present was not authorized to argue the case but only to request a pass over. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order was based on the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the assessee had a fair opportunity to present their case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 301237 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Rules
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH D CHOUGHULE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.339/M/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.2173/M/2021) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. S.K. Ventures, 1, Ground Floor, Block No.A-25/150, Madhuban Hotel Road, Ulhasnagar, Mumbai – 421 003 PAN: AADAS2607K Vs. DCIT-CPC Bangalore, CPC, Income Tax Department, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 100 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Devendra Jain, A.R Revenue by : Shri Prakash D Choughule, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21 . 07 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03 . 11 . 2023 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Heard : Applicant M/s. S.K. Ventures (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/assessee) by moving a miscellaneous application sought to recall the order dated 31.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2173/M/2021 for A.Y. 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that the Tribunal has passed the order (supra) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee ex-parte; that Shri Devendra Jain, counsel for the assessee was appearing before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the said date and had deputed Ms. Laxmi MA No.339/M/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.2173/M/2021) M/s. S.K. Ventures 2 Gupta, C.A. to request for pass over which was granted but Shri Devendra Jain, advocate could not come present being occupied before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and his Junior requested for adjournment which was not granted and matter was taken as heard; that in the order (supra) Ms. Laxmi Gupta, CA. was shown as present before the assessee but she has never been given any letter of authority by the assessee to argue on his behalf rather she was requested to make a request for pass over only. 2. However, on the other hand, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue opposed the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee on the ground that the order (supra) was passed by the Bench after duly considering the material available on record and relied upon the order itself and prayed for dismissal of the miscellaneous application. 3. We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 4. No doubt perusal of the order (supra) passed by the Bench goes to show that Ms. Laxmi Gupta, A.R. is shown to be present on behalf of the assessee but no argument whatsoever has been addressed by her. Even perusal of the appeal filed shows that Ms. Laxmi Gupta, A.R. was never issued the letter of authority to appear on behalf of the assessee which is in favour of Shri Devendra Jain, advocate, Ms. Radha Halbe, advocate, MA No.339/M/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.2173/M/2021) M/s. S.K. Ventures 3 Shri Shashank A. Mehta, C.A. and she was only engaged to make a request for pass over. From the facts brought on record by the assessee and the perusal of the order (supra) certainly proves that the assessee had not been given any opportunity of being heard by the Bench rather order has been passed on the basis of material available on record. So by invoking the proviso to rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Rules, we find sufficient cause for non appearance of the assessee to argue the case and as such order (supra) passed by the Bench ex-parte is ordered to be recalled. Registry is directed to list the appeal for fresh hearing in due course and notice be given to the parties. 5. Resultantly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.11.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) (KULIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 03.11.2023. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.