VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY, MUMBAI V. ASSTT CIT, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

MA 48/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves miscellaneous applications (MA No. 46, 47, 48/MUM/2023) filed by Vivek Raghu Shetty against the orders of the ITAT which were passed in his absence for the assessment years 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The applications were based on the grounds that the assessee did not receive any notice of hearing, supported by an affidavit. The Departmental Representative opposed the recall, arguing that the ITAT had decided the issues on merits. However, the Tribunal found that there was no proof of notice service and acknowledged the assessee's claim of non-receipt, leading to the recall of the earlier orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131321 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Rule 24 of ITAT Rule
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

Page | 1 MA NO 46,47,48/MUM/2023 VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM MA NO. 46/MUM/2023 Arising out of ITA No. 977/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) MA NO. 47/MUM/2023 Arising out of ITA No. 980/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) MA NO. 48/MUM/2023 Arising out of ITA No. 981/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vivek Raghu Shetty 1/1, Shrinagar Building, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai-400092 Vs. ACIT, Circle 32(3) Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Chuchgate Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. Assessee by : Shri Anuj Krishnadwala, AR Revenue by : Ms. Samruddhi Hande, DR Date of hearing: 17.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 10.05.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 1. Miscellaneous Applications No. 46,47,48/Mum/2023 are filed by the assessee in order of the Tribunal in ITA No. Page | 2 MA NO 46,47,48/MUM/2023 VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY. 977,980 and 981/Mum/2022 for assessments year 2010- 11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 dated 27-09-2022 disposed off in absence of assessee as per order dated 27.09.2022. 2. The assessee moved an application invoking the provisions Rule 24 of ITAT Rule and submitted that he did not receive any notice of hearing in the present case. Therefore, in absence of receipt of notice, there was sufficient cost for his non appearance. This fact is also supported by affidavit of the assessee. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative also reiterated the same facts and submitted that the order may be recalled and may be an appeal disposed off after hearing the assessee. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the ITAT has decided the issue on merits and, therefore, now there is no reason to recall the above order. 5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ITAT, in these years, we find that the appeals are decided on merits in absence of assessee. According to provisions of Rule 24,if the appeals are decided exparte and subsequently assessee comes and shows that there was a sufficient cause for his non appearance then the order passed exparte should be recalled. In the present case assessee has stated that he did not receive notice of hearing. Record shows that registry has issued notices through RPAD. However,we did Page | 3 MA NO 46,47,48/MUM/2023 VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY. not find any proof of sending the notice through RPAD as well as any proof of services of the notice. We find that there is a sufficient cause for non-appearance by the assessee as assessee did not receive any notice of hearing and the coordinate bench has disposed of the appeals without hearing the assessee. In view of this we recall the order passed by the ITAT in all three above ITA Numbers passed on 27.09.2021. 6. Registry is directed to issue notice by RPAD and also place on record proof of sending all the notice as well as proof of receipt of such notice, if the acknowledgment is returned, fixing the appeals of the assessee in regular course. 5. In view of this, all these three miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.05.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 10.05.2023 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Page | 4 MA NO 46,47,48/MUM/2023 VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY. Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai