Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125193 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
17-05-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
23-02-2023
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
10-05-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM MA No. 349 to 355/Mum/2018 Arising out of ITA 4305 to 4311/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2011-12) Shri Maf atlal R. Me hta C-22, I s wa r Ni was, 5 th Floo r, S ikka Na ga r, V.P. Road, Mum bai-400 004 Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pratistha Bhavan, 8 th Floor, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAEPM6567E Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Dinesh Chourasia, DR Date of hearing: 24.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by Mr. Mafatlal Mehta (assessee/ appellant) in ITA Nos. 4305 to 4311/Mum/2016 for A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 dated 13 th December, 2017, wherein the appeals filed by the assessee were disposed off in absence of the assessee, against the assessee. 02. In these Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee it is submitted that these appeals were filed on 22 nd June, 2016. Appeals were fixed for hearing on 25 th October, 2017, assessee could not attend due to non receipt of the notice and the co-ordinate Bench has disposed off these Page | 2 MA Nos. 349 to 355/Mum/2018 Shri Mafatlal R. Mehta; A.Y. 05-06 to 11-12 appeals in his absence against him which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He prayed that he has been prevented by just and reasonable cause for not being able to appear on 28 th September, 2017. 03. Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee for last four occasions and therefore, we do not have any other option but to dispose off these Miscellaneous Applications on the merits, in absence of the assessee as these Miscellaneous Applications listed for hearing 31 times out of which at 27 times assessee did not attend. Since 2021, none is appearing on behalf of the assessee. 04. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected the Miscellaneous Applications, stating that assessee has not shown any sufficient cause for his non- appearance. He further submitted that assessee has also not given any reason that why he could not have appeared at the time of disposal of the appeal. In these Miscellaneous Applications also for several occasions the assessee has not appeared. In these circumstances, Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules does not allow to recall this order of ITAT. 05. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the order of the ITAT along with contention of the assessee mentioned in the Miscellaneous Applications. In the co- ordinate Bench order, the appeal of the assessee was decided on merit. Before the co-ordinate Bench, despite notice, assessee did not appear. Even before the learned CIT (A) also, as mentioned that before him also none Page | 3 MA Nos. 349 to 355/Mum/2018 Shri Mafatlal R. Mehta; A.Y. 05-06 to 11-12 appeared. In these Miscellaneous Applications also assessee has simply stated that he did not receive the notice but record shows that all the notices were issued to the assessee by registered post at his address, C-22, Ishwar Niwas, 5 th floor, Sikka Road, VP Road, Mumbai- 400004. This is also the address mentioned by the assessee in his Miscellaneous Application. According to Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, if the appeal is decided in absence of the assessee on merits, for recall of the order assessee has to show that there was a sufficient cause for his non-appearance. In the present Miscellaneous Applications, we do not find that assessee has shown any cause for his non-appearance. Further, his non- appearance is also noted before the learned CIT (A), co- ordinate bench in appellate proceedings and before us, in these Miscellaneous Applications. Therefore, according to Rule 24, we are not empowered to recall this order unless sufficient cause for non-appearance of the assessee is shown. It is absent in these Miscellaneous Applications. Therefore, all these Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. 06. In the result, all the MAs of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated 18.05.2023 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 4 MA Nos. 349 to 355/Mum/2018 Shri Mafatlal R. Mehta; A.Y. 05-06 to 11-12 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
AI Insights
The case involves Mr. Mafatlal Mehta, the assessee, who filed Miscellaneous Applications against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had previously decided his appeals for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12 in his absence. The tribunal had disposed of these appeals due to the non-appearance of the assessee, who claimed non-receipt of notice as the reason for his absence. However, the tribunal found that notices were duly sent to the assessee's registered address. The Departmental Representative objected to the Miscellaneous Applications, emphasizing the lack of sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. The tribunal, after considering the submissions and the history of non-appearance, dismissed the applications, upholding the original orders.
