HEERA HOLDING AND LEASING P.LTD, V. ASST CIT (OSD) CIR 2(1),

MA 363/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9716 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V KRISHNA MURTHY
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH A THAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, H, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL, JM AND RAJENDRA SINGH, AM M.A. NO. 363/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 4423/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) HEERA HOLDINGS AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE: NEVILLE HOUSE, J.N. HEREDIA MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN: AAACH7902B THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE 2(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI. 400 20. APPLICANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 14- 12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-12-201 2 APPLICANT BY : SHRI YOGESH A. THAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. KRISHNA MURTHY O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 4423/MUM/2011 DTD. 4-4-2012. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. 1-6- 2012 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT DTD. 11-12-2012 OF SHRI D.S. GAGRAT, DIRE CTOR OF THE COMPANY STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS UNDER (PARA NO. 3-7) :- 3. THE APPLICANT WAS UNDER AN IMPRESSION THAT A SE PARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WOULD BE RECEIVED. THIS IMPRESSION WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR APPEALS FILED IN CASE OF SOME GROUP COMPANI ES WITH THE HONBLE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVE D IN THE PAST. 4. HOWEVER, ON APRIL 4, 2012, THE HONBLE INCOME TA X TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE APPEAL STATING THAT N O ONE FROM APPLICANTS SIDE APPEARED WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON AP RIL 4, 2012. 5. ON RECEIPT OF THE HONBLE INCOME TAX TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE DAT E OF THE HEARING WAS MA 363/MUM/2012 2 MENTIONED ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE, WHICH, IT IS NOW UNDERSTOOD, A NEWLY STARTED PRACTICE. 6. AS THE APPLICANT WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW P RACTICE, WHEREIN THE DATE OF HEARING WAS MENTIONED IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NO TICE, THE APPLICANT ASSUMED THAT A SEPARATE NOTICE WOULD BE ISSUED TO C OMMUNICATE THE DATE OF HEARING. 7. AND, HENCE THERE HAS BEEN A GENUINE ERROR ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT, IN NOT NOTICING THE DATE THAT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE AND IN EXPECTING A SEPARATE NOTICE FOR T HE DATE OF THE HEARING. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJ ECT TO THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HA VING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD. 4-4-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WIT HOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 13-2-2013 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE MI SC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14-12-2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 14-12-2012 MA 363/MUM/2012 3 RK.: COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT , CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. DR D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI