PREMLEELA DEVELOPERS, V. ADDL CIT 15(3),

MA 441/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1878 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI I.P. BANSAL, (JM) AND N.K.BILLAIYA (AM) . . , . . , MA / NO.441/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ./ ITA NO.3903/MUM/2012: / A.Y.: 2008-09 M/S PREMLEELA DEVELOPERS B-23, DATTANI TOWQER, S V ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400092 / VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 15(3) 122, MATRU MANDIR, 1 ST ST FLOOR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBQI-400007 ( % / APPLICANT) .. ( &'% / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAFFP8017P % / APPELLANT BY : NONE &'% + /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R K SAHU + / / DATE OF HEARING : 30.5.2014 + / /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.5.2014 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: VIDE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AS ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL OF AN EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 26.9.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3903/MUM/2012 WHEREBY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED INLIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON 26.9.2013. 2. IN THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS CONTINUOUS ONGOING DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTNERS AND ALSO DUE TO HEAVY LOSSES IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE ACCOUNTS AND TAXATION WERE N OT LOOKED AFTER PROPERLY. BY WAY OF AN INADVERTENT OMISSION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NO T ATTEND THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING ON 26.9.2013. THUS, THERE WAS A REASONABLE AND SUFF ICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE MA / NO.441/MUM/2013 2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAID DATE AND THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE RESTORED AFTER RECALLING THE EX-PARTY ORDER. THE REASONS STATED IN THE APPLICATION ARE SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 3. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT C AUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, EXERCISING OUR POWERS DESCRIBED IN PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1 963, WE SET ASIDE THE AFOREMENTIONED ORDER DATED 26.9.2013 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILLED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL BE HEARD ON 11.8.2014. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. FIXED DATE OF HEARING SHOULD BE INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF NOTICE TO BE ISSUED THROUGH RPAD. WE DIRECT ACCORDI NGLY. 4. THE MISC.APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN THE MANNER MENTIONED ABOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 6. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30TH MAY, 2014. 3 4 30TH MAY, 2014 + SD SD ( . . / N.K.BILLAIYA) ( . . /I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 30TH MAY, 2014 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % / THE APPELLANT 2. &'% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 9 / CIT CONCERNED MA / NO.441/MUM/2013 3 5. &; , / ; , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ; , /ITAT, MUMBAI