DEWSOFT SOLUTIONS P. LTD, V. ITO 9(1)(3),

MA 47/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0290 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SNEHAL J SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 47/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5032/MUM/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) DEWSOFT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 9 (1)(3) DUDHIYA INDL. ESTATE, S.V.ROAD, DAHISAR (E), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI MMBAI-400 068 VS. PA NO.AAACD 3309 F APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI SNEHAL J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI L.K.AGARWAL O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 6 TH AUGUST, 2009 IN ITA NO.5032/M/2008 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04, WHICH WAS DISMISSED EXPARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, STATED AS UNDER:- A) NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS MADE ON THE PETI TIONER INASMUCH AS NONE OF THE CONCERNED PERSONS HAS RECEIVED THE NOTICE. B) THE PETITIONER WAS NOT AWARE THAT ITS CASE HAS B EEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 31 ST JULY, 2009 AND HENCE COULD NOT ATTEND IN PERSON. C) THIS WAS THE FIRST NOTICE AND SINCE THE PETITION ERS WERE NOT AWARE OF THE HEARING BEING FIXED IT REQUEST THE HONBLE MEMBERS TO GIVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SHRI PANKAJ K.SHAH, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED REASONS STATED IN THE PETITION/AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS IN NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN ORDER TO IMPART SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY PROVI DING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, WE ARE OF THE