CHERYL LABORATORIES P. LTD, V. ITO,

MA 469/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4962 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R M TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUSUDAN SARAF

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE S/SHRI D.K.AGARWAL, JM& PRAMOD KUMAR, AM M.A.NO.469/M/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 2086/MUM/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 CHERRY LABORATORIES P. LTD., V. THE I.T.O, 5(1)(3) , PERSIAN APARTMENTS, GROUND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, PLOT NO.434, V.P.ROAD, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI. MUMBAI-400 053 PA NO.AAACC 4638 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI MADHUSUDAN SARAF RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.M.TIWARI O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: BY WAY OF THIS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS REC ALL OF TRIBUNALS EXPARTE ORDER DATED 25 TH MARCH, 2010. 2. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT IS THAT THE MATT ER WAS DECIDED EXPARTE -QUA-THE ASSESSEE SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE OF HEARING SCHEDULED ON 25 TH MAY, 2010, BUT NO NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE AS SESSEE. AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO FILED. 3. LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THER E IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND, AS SUCH, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE F OR RECALL OF ORDER. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, AND HAVI NG PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALL OF IMPUGNED EXPARTE ORDER AS THERE IS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY M.A.NO.469/M/10 2 SUFFICIENT CAUSE, FROM APPEARING ON THE SCHEDULED D ATE OF HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY RECALL THE EXPATE ORDER AND RESTORED THE APPEAL ON THE ROLLS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO BE HEARD ON 25.10.2010. NO FRESH NOTICE WILL BE ISSUE D 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLO WED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 SD/- (D.K.AGARWAL ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, MUMBAI 4. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (IT)V, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH C, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI M.A.NO.469/M/10 3