M.A. NO. 356/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6476/MUM/2017) A.Y. 2009 - 10, SHRI GIRISH J. JAIN VS. ITO, WARD - 19(1)(3) 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, M UMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M.A. NO. 356/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6474/MUM/2017 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SHRI GIRISH J. JAIN B - 402 , TULSI TOWER CHC, HV COMP. BEHIND CITY CENTRE, S.V. ROAD, GORGAON, MUMBAI 400 062 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 19(1)(3) MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR, MUMBAI - 400 007 ./ ./ PAN NO. AEXPJ5667D ( / APPLICANT) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPLICANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANPREET SINGH GUGGLE , D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 16.07 .2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 .07 .2021 / O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF HIS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6474/MUM/2017, DATED 31.01.2018. M.A. NO. 356/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6476/MUM/2017) A.Y. 2009 - 10, SHRI GIRISH J. JAIN VS. ITO, WARD - 19(1)(3) 2 2. WE MAY HEREIN OBSERVE THAT THE AFORESAID APPLICATION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES SINCE 1 0.09.2018, AND THE SAME, INTER ALIA , ON 21 OCCASIONS WAS ADJOURNED FOR THE REASON THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE BEFORE US OR HAD REQUESTED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAST OCCASION I.E ON 16.07.2021 HAD CONTINUED WITH HIS LACKADAISICAL APPROACH AND ONCE AGAIN FAILED TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE, THEREFORE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISPOSE OFF THE PRESENT APPLICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE CLAIM THEREIN RAISED BY HIM . 3. AS IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE APPLICATION, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID APPEAL THAT WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.01.2018 WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE AN EX - PARTE ORDER DATED 31.01.2018. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAILURE ON HIS PART TO PUT U P AN APPEARANCE IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FOR THE REASON THAT NO NOTICE AS REGARDS ITS FIXATION WAS RECEIVED BY HIM. ACCORDINGLY, ON THE AFORESAID GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT FOR RESTORATION OF H IS APPEAL. 4. AS OBSERVED BY US HEREI NABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY FAILED TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL BUT HAD ALSO CONTINUED WITH HIS LACKADAISICAL APPROACH EVEN IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS QUA THE PRESENT APPLICATION, AND DESPITE HAVING BEEN AFFORD ED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE US . APART FROM THAT, NEITHER IS THERE ANY MATERIAL BORNE ON RECORD WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF HIS AFORESAID CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. ALTHOUGH IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN H IS APPLICATION THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY A JUST AND REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PUTTING UP AN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE SAME IN THE BACKDROP OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS CANNOT BE SUMMAR ILY ACCEPTED ON THE VERY FACE OF IT. ACCORDINGLY, FINDING NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THE SAME. M.A. NO. 356/MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6476/MUM/2017) A.Y. 2009 - 10, SHRI GIRISH J. JAIN VS. ITO, WARD - 19(1)(3) 3 5. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 23 .07.2021 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 23 /07/2021 **PS: ROHIT 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)