SHARDA RAJASHEKHAR, V. ASST CIT 23(1),

MA 399/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9880 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. MITTAL, J. M. AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, A. M. M. A. NOS. : 399 TO 405/MUM/2012 (ARISING IN ITA NOS.: 3624 TO 3630/MUM/2008) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1998-99 TO 2004-05 SMT. SHARDA RAJASHEKAR PROP: SHARDA CATERERS, 4/4 SADAN WADI CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LAKE ROAD, OFF L.B.S. MARG, BHANDUP WEST, MUMBAI [ PAN NO.: AAAPI 5960 M ] VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (23) (1) C-10, PRATKSHYA BHAVAN, B. K. COMPLEX, MUMBAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.01.2013 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, A.M. : THESE ARE A SET OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS BY THE A SSESSEE, DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 18.02.2009 BY THE TRIBUNAL (IN I TA NOS. 3624 TO 3630/MUM/2008 DATED 18/2/2009) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (A.YS.) 1 998-99 TO 2004-05, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN LIMINE FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MOVED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TIONS (M.AS.), PRAYING FOR A RECALL BY THE TRIBUNAL OF ITS ORDER DATED 18.02.200 9 (SUPRA), STATING THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSE, W HO MISPLACED THE SAME AND ALSO FAILED TO INFORM THE ASSESSEE, SO THAT IT WAS NOT A WARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING SO AS TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENTS ITSELF ON THE RELEVANT DATE. AN AFFIDAVIT/S DATED 28.05.2012 TO THIS EFFECT M.A. NOS. 399 TO 405/MUM/2012 SHARDA RAJASHEKAR V. ADDL. CIT 2 STANDS ALSO ENCLOSED ALONG WITH. ON AN EARLIER DAT E, WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING, IT WAS QUESTIONED BY THE BENCH AS TO, EVEN GRANTING SO, WHY DID THE ASSESSEE NOT MOVE A RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS SOON AFTER THE RECEIPT O F THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18.02.2009, BUT ONLY AFTER NEARLY 3 YEARS, ON 22.06.2012. THE LD. AR HAS NOW SUBMITTED FRESH AFFIDAVIT/S DATED 04.01.2013, STATING THAT ON ACCOU NT OF HER AILMENT, IN VIEW OF WHICH THE ASSESSE ALSO COULD NOT ATTEND TO OFFICE WORK, THE T RIBUNALS ORDER REMAINED UNATTENDED, AND CAME TO LIGHT ONLY WHEN THE PENALTY MATTERS CAM E UP IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2012. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR BEFORE US DID NOT DISPUTE THE AVERMENTS PER THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 04/1/2013. IN VIEW OF THE FORE GOING, IN OUR VIEW, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDEDLY NOT BEEN VIGILANT ENOUGH, HER BONA FIDES ARE NOT IN DOUBT AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR A RECALL BY THE TRIBUNAL OF ITS ORDER DATED 18/2/2009 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN LIMINE . THE DATE OF HEARING, EVEN AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, SHALL BE 02.04.2013 , FOR WHICH NO FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING SHALL BE SENT SEPARATELY. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 ( B. R. MITTAL ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11.01.2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, A - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI