KISHOR BAJAJ, V. DCIT RG 9(1),

MA 492/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0042 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIPAK KUMAR SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: V C SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH,WT MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO:486/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF : WTA NO.30/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 MA NO:492/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF : WTA NO.31/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SHRI KISHORE BAJAJ 501, KRYSTAL 206 PATKAR MARG WATERFIELD ROAD, BANDRA (W) MUMBAI-400 050. PAN NO.: ACPPB 3650 G DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 9(1) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI V.C. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DIPAK KUMAR SINHA DATE OF HEARING : 15.2.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.2.2013 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 3 0.11.2011 IN WTA NO.30-31/M/2011. IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HA D DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF R EPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF TH E APPEAL. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T ON THE PREVIOUS DATE OF HEARING I.E., ON 29.6.2011 THE LD. AR HAD A PPEARED BUT THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE MA NO.486 & 492/MUM/12 KIS HOR BAJAJ 2 ANY NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. IT APPEARS THE CASE HAD BEEN FIXED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD ABOUT WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THAT EFFECT HAS BEEN FILED AND IT HAS BEEN REQUESTE D THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER HEARING TH E ASSESSEE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONA BLE CAUSE FOR NON- COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 30.11 .2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER WHICH WILL BE HEARD ON 9.4.2013. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO FORMAL NOTI CE OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.2.2013. SD/- SD/- (S.T.M. PAVALAN) ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 15.02.2013. JV. MA NO.486 & 492/MUM/12 KIS HOR BAJAJ 3 COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.