TANNA AND MODI, V. ITO 25(3)(4),

MA 501/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5325 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJUKATA CHOWDHARY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.500 AND 501/MUM/2010 IN ITA NOS. 1516 AND 1517/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02) TANNA AND MODI 107/108 SUPER SHOPPING COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, BAJAJ CROSS ROAD, KANDIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400067 PAN: AAFT2151P APPLICANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(4), C-11, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : MS.SANJUKATA CHOWDHARY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDER KUMA R O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE APPLICANT ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RESTORATION OF THE APPEALS WHICH WERE DISMISSED BY AN EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 16. 07.2010 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND OF NON-PROSEC UTION. MA NO.500 AND 501/MUM/2010 IN ITA NOS. 1516 AND 1517/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02) 2 2. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE DIARY OF THE APPLICANTS COUNSEL NOR THE APPLICANT HAD RECEIVED THE NOTICE FIXING THE DA TE OF HEARING. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION, AND AT THE ADDRESS GIV EN IN FORM NO.36, NO ONE WAS IN THE OFFICE AND HENCE THE NOTIC E OF HEARING RETURNED BACK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY RELIED UPON THE ACTION OF TH E CA AND COUNSELS, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A INTENTIONAL MISTA KE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN ABSENT BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 3. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED THE CONTENTIONS AND PRA YER MADE BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND REL EVANT RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LEARN ED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RESTORATION OF THESE APPEALS ARE BONAFIDE AND THERE IS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THE PROCEDURE. WE ARE ALSO OF T HE VIEW THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSE SSEE NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. THEREFOR E, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 16.07.2010 AND RESTORE THES E APPEALS TO THE RECORDS FOR FRESH HEARING. THE REGISTRY D IRECTED TO FIX THESE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON 18.01.2011. SINCE BOT H THE MA NO.500 AND 501/MUM/2010 IN ITA NOS. 1516 AND 1517/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02) 3 PARTIES WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO SEPA RATE NOTICE OF HEARING WOULD BE SENT TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. THIS IS SO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 19.11.2010. SD SD (S V MEHROTRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 22 ND NOV 2010 SRL:221110 COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)XXV 5. DR E BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI