SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTO FAB INDUSTRIES, V. DCIT 3(1),

MA 487/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8209 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVIN N SHAH

Judgement Text

MA NO.487/MUM/2011 SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J.M. MA NO. : 487/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO : 19/MUM/2010 BLOCK PERIOD : 1990-91 TO 1999-00 SHREE BRIJRAJ PLA STOFAB INDUSTRIES CIT(APPEALS)-414, LANCELOT, SV ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 092. PAN NO: AAAFB 0954 G VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD 2(2) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVIN N. SHAH RESP ONDENT BY : SHRI P. S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 18.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.05.2012 ORDER PER VIVEK VARMA (J.M.) : THE APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 05.03.2010 W HICH WAS, IT(SS)A NO.19/MUM/2010 COVERING BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 199 9-00. 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL ON 25.01.2011 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON ATTENDANCE AND NON PROSECUTION ON 28.01.2011. THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN M.A. WITH A PRAYER TO RECALL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL FILED ORIGI NALLY. IN THE APPLICATION MA NO.487/MUM/2011 SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES PAGE 2 OF 4 WHICH HAS BEEN FILED, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN THE D ETAILS FOR NON ATTENDANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BL E BENCH I.E. ON 25.01.2011. IN THE APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 05.03.2011 AND NORMALLY IT TAKES ABOUT 12 TO 18 MONTHS FOR THE MATTER TO COME UP FOR HEARING. DURING THIS PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAD VACATED THE PREMISES, FROM THE ADDRESS OF WHICH WAS GIVEN ON THE APPEAL MEMO IN FORM NO. 36. IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT THE COMPANY WHO TOOK THE PREMISES FROM THE ASS ESSEE EVEN THEY LEFT, AS THEY HAD TO MOVE TO BIGGER PREMISES. THE ASSESS EE FURTHER INFORMS THAT SINCE A LOT OF TIME HAD ELAPSED, THEY MADE ENQUIRIE S AND CAME TO KNOW THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN DISMISSED AND EVEN THAT OR DER, DATED 28.01.2011 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ONLY AROU ND 12.08.2011 THAT THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THEIR APPEAL WAS T AKEN BY HAND FROM THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR. THE APPELLANT QUOTES THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DISMISSED AND HAS DECIDED ON M ERITS. THE CASE LAWS ARE M.X. DE NORNHA & SONS REPORTED IN 18 ITR 928 (A LLD) AND CIT VS. S. CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR (1969) 74 ITR 41 ( SC ). 3. BEFORE US TODAY THE AR REITERATED THE REASONS FOR NON ATTENDANCE AND PRAYED THAT THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED. WE FIN D THAT THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 24 ARE ACCEPTED , WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2011 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS NOW MA NO.487/MUM/2011 SHREE BRIJRAJ PLASTOFAB INDUSTRIES PAGE 3 OF 4 FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.08.2012. IT HAS BEEN PRONO UNCED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE SERVED WITH ANY FURTHER NOTICE. 4. ORDER RECALLED. APPEAL RESTORED AND NOW FIXED FO R HEARING ON 21.08.2012. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ITSELF I.E. ON 18.05.2012. SD/- SD/- ( J. SUDHAKAR. REDDY ) ( VIVEK VARMA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 18.05.2012 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, D - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI