PREMIER OPTICALS P. LTD, V. DCIT 9(2),

MA 349/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9856 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO: 349/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF : ITA NO.4055/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. PREMIER OPTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED KIRTI MANOR, S.V. ROAD, SANTACRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400 054. PAN NO: AAACP 2280 L DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -9(2) ROOM NO.218, 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. (APPLICANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2013 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RE-CALL OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.4055/M/11. IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL DECIDE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EXPARTE AS NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 15.03.2012. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THOU GH NOTICE OF HEARING HAD BEEN GIVEN WELL IN ADVANCE NEITHER SOMEONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL EXPARTE IN WHICH APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE WAS ALLOWED PARTLY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HA S SUBMITTED THAT NOBODY COULD APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 15 .3.2012 AS NOTICE OF MA NO.349/M/12 ARISING OUT OF ITA N O. 4055/M/11 A.Y: 08-09 2 HEARING HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST HEARING AND, THEREFORE, EXPARTE ORDER WAS NOT JUSTI FIED. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 18.1.2013, NO ONE APPEARED AGAIN ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CAME UP FOR HEAR ING. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ON 16.11.2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS ALLOWED AND NOTICE RE-FIXING THE CASE ON 18.1.2 013 WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP WILL BE PLACED ON RECORD. NEITHER SOMEONE HAS APPEARED NOR EVEN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN FILED. WE, THEREFORE, PROCEED TO DECIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR WHO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL BY WAY OF A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER IN WHICH THERE IS NO AP PARENT MISTAKE. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS, THEREFORE, REJECTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.01.2013. SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23.01.2013. JV. MA NO.349/M/12 ARISING OUT OF ITA N O. 4055/M/11 A.Y: 08-09 3 COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.