SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, V. ITO 13()(4),

MA 390/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7267 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALEXANDER CHANDY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.390/MUM/2011 (IN ITA NO. 1482/MUM/2006) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94) SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL INCOME TAX OFFICER 11/83 OM DARIYAMAHAL VS. 13(1)(4) 80, NEPEAN SEA ROAD MUMBAI MUMBAI 400006 PAN AACPA 0554 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ALEXANDER CHANDY DATE OF HEARING: 04/11/2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25/11/2011 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE REQUEST FOR RECALL OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 WHI CH CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI ON 6 TH MARCH, 2011 AND HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY ITS ORDER DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2011 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSES SEE. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS PENDIN G BEFORE THE ITAT AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THE ASSESSEE HAD T O SEEK ADJOURNMENT ON 11 OCCASIONS. HOWEVER, EVEN AFTER DISPOSAL OF THE A PPEAL BY THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2011 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON 3 RD MARCH, 2011. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED, THERE WAS AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER FROM THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME REASON WHICH WAS REJECTED AS THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF B Y THE ITAT. MA NO. 390/MUM/2011 SHRI SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL, MUMBAI 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE QUANTUM APPEA L WAS DISPOSED OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON ON THAT APPEAL AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COUNSEL COULD NOT APPEAR AND FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO PAY ` 1000/- AS COST TOWARDS NON-APPEARANCE ON THE SAID DATE. 4. SINCE THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE, THE ASSESS EE AND HAVING PAID THE COST OF ` .1000/- TO ITAT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE APP EAL CAN BE RECALLED UNDER RULE 24, FOR DECIDING ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY ALLOWING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.148 2/MUM/2006 IS HEREBY RECALLED. 5. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE CASE IN DUE CO URSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25 TH NOVEMBER 2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI VNODAN/SPS