SHAILESH G. SETH, V. ACIT RG 13(2),

MA 389/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7027 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTAM BOSE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, (JM) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,(AM) MA NO.389/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.377/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHAILESH G. SHETH 424, GIRIRAJ BUILDING S.T. ROAD, IRON MARKET MUMBAI-400 002. ..( APPLICANT ) P.A. NO. (ADFPS 2137 N) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-3(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SH ANTAM BOSE DATE OF HEARING : 23.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.9.2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 6.6.2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.377/MUM/2009. IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF REPRES ENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNSEL APPOINTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E CASE HAD MA NO.389/M/11 A.Y:05-06 2 INFORMED THAT THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING ON THE DAY OF HEARING I.E. ON 6.6.2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, HOWEVER THE COUNSEL INFORM ED THAT THERE WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON HIS PART IN CONVEYING T HAT THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. THUS, THE DEFAULT WAS DUE TO BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN FILED AND IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE ON 6.6.2011. WE ACCORDINGLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE RECA LL THE ORDER TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER WHICH WILL BE HEARD ON 9.11.2011. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENC E OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, NO FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING I S REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/9/2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23 RD SEPT. 2011. JV. MA NO.389/M/11 A.Y:05-06 3 COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. MA NO.389/M/11 A.Y:05-06 4 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 23.9.11 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 23.9.11 SR.PS/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 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 23.9.11 SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER