SAGAR OVERSEAS, V. ITO WD 14(3)(2),

MA 406/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9097 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: I P RATHI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH K, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSALJUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO..406/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6835/MUM/2007,A.Y.2000-01) M/S. SAGAR OBVERSEAS, C/O. DIVYESH SHETH, 518, MASTERMINED-1, ROYAL PALMS, AREY COLONY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI 400 065. PAN: AAAFS 4517J (APPLICANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14 (3)(2), EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 21. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI I.P.RATHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJARSHI DWIVEDY DATE OF HEARING : 14/09/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 4/09/2012 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M VIDE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AS ABOVE THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL OF EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 5/09/2009 PASSED B Y THE ITAT K BENCH, MUMBAI IN ITA NO.6835/MUM/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING . 2. IN THE APPLICATION IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT TH E OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED FROM 408, OOMRIGAR BLDG., L.T. MARG, MU MBAI 400 002 TO THE OFFICE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS I.E. C/O. DIVYESH SHE TH, 518, MASTERMIND-1, ROYAL PALMS, AAREY COLONY, GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI 400 065 IN DECEMBER, 2007. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE NEW ADDRESS WAS INFORMED TO VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE COULD NOT INADVERTE NTLY INFORMED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE TRIBUNAL. BECAUSE OF NON -INFORMING THE TRIBUNAL M.A.NO..406/MUM/2012 2 THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE FOR THE APPEAL WHICH WAS FIXED ON 05/09/2008. SUCH REASON HAS BEEN PLEADED TO BE A REASONABLE CAUSE. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS REGARDING QUANTIFICATION OF PROFIT ON TRANSFER OF DEPB UNDER SECTION 28 (IIID), WHICH WAS PENDING BEFORE SPECIAL BENCH AT T HE TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED . THUS IT IS PLEADED THAT IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE AND ALSO REASONABLE CAUSE PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AFORE MENTIONED EX-PARTE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. AN AFFIDAVIT IS ALSO FILED IN SUP PORT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUN AL WAS RIGHT IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON -PROSECUTION. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. FROM THE REASONS STATED IN THE APPLICATION WHICH HAVE BEEN E NUMERATED ABOVE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABL E AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE FIXED DAT E OF HEARING. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR AFOREMENTIONED EX-PARTE ORDER AND RE STORE THE APPEAL FOR FRESH DISPOSAL. TO AVOID THE PROCESS OF AGAIN SERVING THE NOTICE IT WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WILL BE HEARD ON 21/11/2012. THE DATE WAS DULY NOTED BY THE LD. A.R OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO RECEIVE ANY NOTICE IN T HIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH E 14 TH DAY OF SEPT. 2012 SD/- SD/- ( RAJENDRA ) (I.P.BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 14 TH SEPT ., 2012. M.A.NO..406/MUM/2012 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RK BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. `