JAVERILAL D. BHANSALI, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

MA 471/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5853 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN KUMAR MISHRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 254(2); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.471, 472 & 473 /MUM./2019 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 854, 855 & 856 /MUM./201 7 ) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 08, 2008 09 & 2009 10 ) SHRI JHAVERILAL D. BHANSALI OFFICE NO.3, 1 ST FLOOR 35, PANDAYA HOUSE 2 ND CARPENTER STREET, C.P. TANK MUMBAI 400 004 PAN AFZPB2388G . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAVIN KUMAR MISHRA REVENUE BY : SHRI AMIT PRATAP SINGH DATE OF HEARING 22 . 11 .20 19 DATE OF ORDER 14.02.2020 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. B Y THESE APPLICATIONS PURPORTEDLY FILED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) R/W RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH APRIL 2019, PASSED IN M.AS NO.854, 855 & 856/MUM./201 7. 2. AS STATED IN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS AND SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US, ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF EARLIER 2 JHAVERILAL D. BHANSALI MISC. APPLICATIONS ON 5 TH APRIL 2919, LEANED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AVAILABLE , HENCE, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT VIDE LETTER DATED 3 RD APRIL 2910. HOWEVER , THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS EX PARTE WITHOUT GRANTING ADJOURNMENT. THUS, IT IS SUBMITTED , THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED BY EXERCISING POWER UNDER RULE 24. 3. THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OPPOSED RECALL OF THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 18 TH APRIL 2019, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M.AS NO.854, 855 & 856/MUM./2017, IT IS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS WERE CALLED FOR HEARING, NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. THOUGH, THE TRIBUNAL TOOK NOTE OF APPLICATION DATED 8 TH APRIL 2019, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING AD JOURNMENT, HOWEVER, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED IN PARA 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL NOT ONLY PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS EX PARTE, BUT ALSO RECORDED ITS FINDING AS TO WHY THE APPEAL ORDER IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE RECALLED. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS SEEKING REPEATED ADJOURNMENT S WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CASE. T HEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS CONSTRAINT TO PASS AN EX PARTE ORDER , THOUGH , DEALING WITH THE ISSUES ON MERIT S AND WITH PROPER REASONING . AS PER RULE 24, IF AN APPEAL IS DECIDED EX PARTE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE 3 JHAVERILAL D. BHANSALI APPELLANT , THEN IF THE TRIBUNAL IS SATISFIE D THAT THE ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE, THE TRIBUNAL MAY RECALL THE EX PARTE ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED IS NOT IN RELATION TO AN APPEAL, BUT IN RESPECT OF MISC. APPLICATION. STRICTLY SPEAKING, THE PROVISION S OF RULE 24 WOULD NOT APPLY. FURTHER, SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. BE THAT AS IT MAY, EVEN ASSUMING FOR TH E SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT RULE 24 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR HIS NON APPEARANCE. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REPEATEDLY SEEKING ADJOURNMENT S AND HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE D OES NOT DESERVE ANY SYMPATHY OR LENIENCY. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPLICATIONS BEING DEVOID OF MERIT DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.02.2020 SD/ - N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, D ATED: 14.02.2020 4 JHAVERILAL D. BHANSALI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI