MAN INDUSTIRES LTD, V. ACIT 8(2),

MA 415/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3790 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR BHUJLE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL, JM & R.K.PANDA, AM M.A.NO.415/M/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.5406/MUM/2005) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., V. THE A.C.I.T. 8(2 ), 1, CHANDRAJEET, 120, S.V. ROAD, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M .K. ROAD, MUMBAI-58. MUMBAI. PA NO.AAACM 2675-G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR KISHOR BHUJLE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDISH (DR) O R D E R PER D.K.AGARWAL, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3 RD MARCH, 2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5406/ M/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH NO ONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TH E DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WAS KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE O NLY AFTER THE DECISION OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO BY T HE LD D.R. 2 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SAT ISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEAR ANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AN D, ACCORDINGLY, THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 3.3.2008 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 14.9.2010 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ST ANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.6.2010 SD/- (R.K.PANDA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 18 TH JUNE , 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VIII, MUMB AI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VIII, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH C, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.6.2010 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18.6.2010 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 4