HEMKUTA INDL INVESTMENT CO. LTD, V. ITO WD 6(3)(2),

MA 437/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2874 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH ( JM ) , AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM) , . . , MISC.APPLICATI ON NO. 437 /MUM/20 14 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 9651/ MUM/20 0 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001 - 02 ) HEM A KU T A INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CO.LTD, ADMINISTRATIVE ADDRESS, 204, MARIN E CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, CHURCHGA T E, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(2), MUMBAI ( / APP LICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./ PAN/GIRNO.: AAACH2019R / APP LICANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NEIL PHILIP / DATE OF HEARING : 20. 3. 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.3. 2015 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 25.5.2007 PASSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.9651/MUM/2004 RELATING TO A SSESSMENT Y EAR - 2001 - 02. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL , IT HA D SHIFTED ITS OFFICE FROM BOMBAY TO THANE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INFORMED ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. - 6(3)(2) , MUMBAI, VIDE I TS LETTER DATED 30.1.2006 AND TO THE CIT(A) - X XVI,MUMBAI , VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 31.1.2006 . THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER MA NO. 437 /MUM/20 14 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SHIFTED FROM ITO - 6(3)(2) TO ITO, WARD - 1, BELLARY , VIDE ORDER DATED 23.7.2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 127(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE, I NADVERTENTLY THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS WAS NOT INFORMED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. HENCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING , SINCE IT WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE HEARING. HOWEVER, TH E HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MULTIPL AN INDIA(P) (38 ITD 320 (DEL). 3 . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE NOTICE FROM TAX RECOVERY OFFICER ON 23.9.2014 , WHEREIN THE DEMAND RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 WAS SOUGHT TO BE RECOVERED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE TAX RECO VERY OFFICER THAT THE APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2001 - 02 IS PENDING BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FACT OF THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL. IMMEDIATELY, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER S TO T HE REGISTRAR OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SEE KING A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE SAID REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , VIDE LETTERS DATED 17.10.2014, 6.11.2014 AND 12.11.2014. SUBSEQUENT LY, A CERTIFIED COPY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.11.2014 AND IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER THE AS SESSEE FILED PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION. 4. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TIME LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS FOR FILIN G OF MISC. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 25 4(2) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS REGARD , HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: MA NO. 437 /MUM/20 14 3 A) PETERPLAST SYNTHETICS P LTD V/S ACIT (2014) 364 ITR 16(GUJ) B) PAWAN KUMAR JAIN V/S DCIT (2013) 155 TTJ (MUM) 14 ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE RECALLED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5 . WE HEARD THE LD. DR WHO HAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6 . HAVING HE ARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE T RIBUNAL ON TH E DATE OF HEARING, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED HIS ADDRESS IN 2006 ITSELF FRO M BOMBAY TO THANE AND HENCE THERE IS MERIT IN ITS CONTENTIONS THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING . FURTHER , THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN US THAT IT HAS RECEIVED THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ONLY IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2014 . T HE DECISIONS RELIED UP O N BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS I T S CONTENTION THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE COMPUTED FROM THE DA T E OF R ECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSEE . WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION . UNDER THESE SET OF FA CTS, WE DEEM IT PROPER AND FI T TO RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 22.5.2007 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.9651/MUM/2004. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING IN THE NORMAL COURSE. MA NO. 437 /MUM/20 14 4 7. IN THE R ESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20TH MAR , 2015 . 20 TH MAR , 2015 `SD SD ( / JOGINDER SINGH ) ( . . , / B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 20TH MAR ,201 5 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERN ED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI