RICHI JEWEL, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -18(3)(2), MUMBAI

MA 418/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7255 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAJAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

P A G E | 1 M.A.418/MUM/2018 AY. 2010 - 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6554/MUM/2017) M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 18(3)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 418 /MUM/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6554/MUM/2017 ) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010 - 11 ) M/S RICHI JEWEL ROOM NO. 24, 2 ND FLOOR, 48, BIHARI BAUG, 3 RD FLOOR, BHOIWADA, MUMBAI 400 002 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 18(3)(2) EMEST HOUSE, 6 TH FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN AAKFR6536Q (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M. RAJAN , D.R DATE OF HEARING: 08 .03 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 2 3 .04.2019 O R D E R PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.06.2018 ARISES FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. ITO, WARD - 18(3)(2), MUMBAI IN ITA NO.6554/MUM/2017, DATED 07.02.2018 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE APPLICANT DESPITE HAVING BEEN PUT TO NOTICE ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION HAD F AILED TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPLICATION . WE THUS PROCEED WITH THE MATTER P A G E | 2 M.A.418/MUM/2018 AY. 2010 - 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6554/MUM/2017) M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 18(3)(2) AFTER PERUSING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPLICANT AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AFORESAID APPLICATION HAS STATED THAT AS NO NOTICE INTIMATING THE FIXATION OF THE APPEAL WAS SERVED UPON IT, THEREFORE, FOR THE SA I D REASON NO REPRESENTATION COULD BE MADE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE STIPULATED DATE . IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS ITS APPEAL HAD BEEN DISPOSED OFF WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS THE SAME MAY BE RESTORED AND THEREIN DISPOSED OFF AFTER AFFORDING A N OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO IT. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (FOR SHORT D.R) OBJECTED TO THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AFORESAID APPLICATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R THAT A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE AFORESAID APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 07.02.2018 REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS REPRESENTED BY A DULY AUTHORIZED COUNSEL. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF TH E LD. D.R THAT AS THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE , ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT HAD SOUGHT THE RESTORING OF THE APPEAL WERE ABS OLUTELY INCORRECT, THEREFORE, ITS APPLICATION WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. ITO, WARD - 18(3)(2), MUMBAI (ITA NO. 6554/MUM/2017, DATED 07.02.2018 ) FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11, IT STANDS REVEALED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS DULY REPRESENTED BY AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE VIZ. SHRI S. SRIRAM ADVOCATE . IN FACT, PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AS ON 30.01.2018 DULY AUTHORIZED THE AFORESAID COUNS EL VIZ. SHRI S. P A G E | 3 M.A.418/MUM/2018 AY. 2010 - 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6554/MUM/2017) M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 18(3)(2) SRIRAM, ADVOCATE TO APPEAR IN ITS AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND THAT THE VERY CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS APPEAL HAD BEEN DISPOSED OFF WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO IT TO PUT UP AN APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL IS ABSOLUTELY MISCONCEIVED AND MISPLACED. WE THUS NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPREHEND AS TO ON WHAT BASIS THE AFORESAID APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL, REJECT THE SAME. 7. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 3 . 04.2019 S D / - S D / - ( G.S.PANNU) (RAVISH SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL ME MBER MUMBAI ; 2 3 .04.2019 PS. ROHIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) P A G E | 4 M.A.418/MUM/2018 AY. 2010 - 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.6554/MUM/2017) M/S RICHI JEWEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 18(3)(2) , / ITAT, MUMBAI