BOHEA PROPERTIES P. LTD, V. ITO 6(1)(4),

MA 354/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2566 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 354/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA 1293/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2005-06 MA NO. 355/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA 1294/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2007-08 M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 608, REGENT CHAMBERS, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. VS. ITO 6(1) - 4, ROOM NO. 503, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI HARIDAS BHAT RESPONDENT BY SHRI VIVEK BATRA ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2014 OF THIS TRIBUNAL , WHEREBY THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 2007-08 WERE DISPOSED OFF EX PARTE. DATE OF HEARING 17.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.10.2014 M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD 2 | P A GE 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WERE HEARD EX PARTE BECAUSE NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING SETTING ASIDE OF THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO IS B ASED IN NEW DELHI, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ANY NO N ATTENDEANCE BY THE SAID AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIV EN AN OPPORTUNTIY TO DEFEND THE APPEALS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE N ON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. FURTHER THE APPEALS WERE DECIDED ON MERIT S AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ERROR OR MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RE CORD, THEREFORE, THE ORDERS PASSED ON MERITS CANNOT BE REVERSED UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 254(2). 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TH E GROUND OF NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AS LAPSE ON TH E PART OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER THERE IS NO REPRESENTATIVE ON THE RECORD TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. W E FIND THAT THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY LETTER ON BELHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AUTHORI ZING ANY REPRESENTATIVE IN THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ANY RECORD TO SHOW M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD 3 | P A GE THE AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE REASONS EX PLAINED. THE APPLICATIONS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY AFFIDAVIT EITHER OF THE AS SESSEE OR THE ALLEGED REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD NOT MADE THE APPEARANCE ON T HE DATE OF HEARING AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE DISPOSED OFF BY SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF ASSESSI NG OFFICER AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX PARTE . THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE TO DECIDE THE APPEALS IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS WELL AS IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH WERE RELE VANT ON THE POINT OF DETERMINATION OF ALP U/S 23(1)(A). WHEN THE ISSUE I S ALREADY SET ASIDE WIHTOUT ANY FINDING ON MERITS, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y SUBSTANCE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE REASONABLE CAUSE TO THE SATISFCATION O F THE TRIBUNAL FOR NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 17 TH DAY OF OCTOEBR 2014 SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 17-10-2014 SKS SR. P.S M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD M/S BOHEA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD 4 | P A GE COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI