RATANCHAND J OSWAL, V. ITO 8(2)(1),

MA 430/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4988 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: BEHARILAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 430/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 5176/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 MR. RATANCHAND J. OWAL 83/84, SOLITAIRE, CENTRAL AVENUE, SANTACRUZ (WEST), MUMBAI-400 054 PAN:AAAPO2411M VS. I.T.O. 8(2)(1) MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BEHARILAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 20.08.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 11.08.2010 PER R.K. PANDA, AM: THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N (MA) REQUESTS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY IT DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEA RANCE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE MA SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS F ORWARDED TO THE CONCERNED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, HE COULD NOT FO RWARD THE NOTICE ALONG WITH THE CASE PAPERS TO THE LEGAL COUN SEL BECAUSE OF HIS PRE-OCCUPATION WITH CAG AUDIT. THEREFORE, NOBO DY APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER SHOULD BE RECALLED A ND THE APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD ON MERIT. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH M.A. NO. 430/MUM/2010 MR. RATANCHAND J. OSWAL =================== 2 NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WE, THEREFO RE, RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR H EARING ON 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T. IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARI NG SHALL BE SENT TO THEM FOR WHICH BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED. TH E MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF, I.E., 20 TH AUGUST, 2010 SSS/D/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH SEPT 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-VIII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT-VIII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR D BENCH. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO