MERCK LTD, V. ACIT CIR 6(3),

MA 356/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7029 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANTAM BOSE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL(AM) & VIJAY PAL RAO (JM) M.A.NO. 356/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.5430/MUM/2009) (A.Y. 2002-03) M/S. MERCK LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS E. MERCK (INDIA) LTD.), SHIVSAGAR ESTATE A, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018. PAN: AAACE2616F VS. ASST.COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, CIR. 6(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY SHRI AJIT SHAH. RESPONDENT BY SHRI SAN TAM BOSE. DATE OF HEARING : 09-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-09-2011 O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31-05-2011 IN ITA NO.5430/MUM/20 09 THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-P ROSECUTION BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH, IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THROUGH AFFIDA VIT, HAS NARRATED THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AT THE HEARING OF THE AP PEAL ON VARIOUS DATES BEFORE MA NO.356/M/2011 2 THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS MISC. APPLICATION. SINCE EFFE CTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS DENIED, HE PLEADED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL DATED 31-05-2011 MAY BE RECALLED. 3. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS TAKEN BY THE LD. D.R. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. SINCE EFFE CTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS BEEN DENIED, THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER IN ITA NO.5430/MUM/2009. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING ON 11-10-2011 AND THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND SEPARATE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN NOTED BY THE LD. A.R. AND HE HAS WAIVED THE RIGHT TO SEPARA TE NOTICE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 09 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 09TH SEPTEMBER , 2011 COPY TO : 1. APPLICANT. 2.RESPONDENT. 3 CIT(A)-XXVI,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-6,MUMBAI. 5.DR,B BENCH,MUMBAI. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, NG: ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. MA NO.356/M/2011 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 09-09-2011 SR.PS/ 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09-09-2011 SR.PS/ 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 09-09-2011 SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 09-09-2011 SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 13-09-2011 SR.PS/ 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *