PREKSHA EXPORTS P. LTD, V. ACIT CEN CIR 33,

MA 522/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6048 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH SANGHVI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, (JM) AND SHRI R.K. PAND A,(AM) MA NO.522/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5935 & 5936/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. PREKSHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. FLAT NO.7, R.V. SANITORIUM SION(E) MUMBAI-22. ..( APPLICANT ) P.A. NO. (AAACP 4608 E) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-33 MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MANISH SANGHVI RESPONDENT BY : MS. ASHI MA GUPTA O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL IN ITA NO. 5935 & 5936/MUM/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AN D 2003- 04. 2. THE APPLICANT SHRI SHANKAR G. ATALE DIRECTOR OF M/ S. PREKSHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VIDE HIS PETITION DATED 24.8.2010 SU PPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.11.2010 INTERALIA STATED ON OATH THAT : 3. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A COMPANY. THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE. ALL THE WORK OF THE COMPANY IS LOOKED AFTER BY THE DIRECTORS ONLY. MA NO.522/M/10 A.Y:02-03 & 03-04 2 4. THAT THE DIRECTORS WERE OUT OF TOWN WHEN THE NOTICE WAS SOUGHT TO BE SERVED ON THE THEM. SINCE THE DIRECTORS WERE NOT IN TOWN AND SINCE THE COMPANY DO ES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE THE APPELLANT DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING AND THEREFORE WAS UNA BLE TO ATTEND ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN ASSESSEES APPLICATION, THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED WHICH WAS NOT O BJECTED TO BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 28.6.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLE D. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 14.03.20 11 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STANDS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.01.2011. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.01.2011. JV. MA NO.522/M/10 A.Y:02-03 & 03-04 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.