INDOMAG STEEL TECHN OLOGY LTD, V. JCIT SP. RG 28,

MA 528/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3858 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P N DEVADASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: FIROZE ANDHYARUJINA
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, F BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE S/SHRI S.V.MEHROTRA AM , JM & N.V.VASUDEVAN, AM M.A.NO.528/M/2009 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.451/MUM/2001) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 M/S. INDOMAG STEEL TECHNOLOGY LTD., V. THE JCIT, S PL. RANGE-28, (PRESENTLY KNOWN SMC IRON TECHNOLOGY P.LTD)., MUMBA I. B-402, SOM DUTT CHAMBER-1, 5, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066. PA NO.AAACI 1682 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR FIROZE ANDHYARUJINA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.N. DEVADASAN O R D E R PER S.V.MEHROTRA, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION ON 30.7.2009 FOR RECALLING THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 15.9.2004 PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN ITA NO.451/M/2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THIS APPLICATION IS BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE D ATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER AND, THEREFORE, THE OFFICE HAS MADE NOTE THAT THE APPLIC ATION IS TIME BARRED BY 9 MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PETITION HAS, INTER ALIA, POINT ED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.9.2004 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL REMAINED UNSERVED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SHIFTED ITS OFFICE FROM MUMBAI TO NEW DELHI AND HAD DULY INFORMED THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THIS FACT ONLY WHEN IT RECEIVED THE ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1998-99 BY A COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.3.2008 SERVED ON 18.3.2008 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING VIZ 14.9.2004 AND, THEREFORE, NONE ATTENDED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS HARPING UNDER BONAFIDE BE LIEF THAT SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 AND 1998-9 9, AND THE MATTER FOR THE A.Y. 1997-98 WAS ALSO TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 3 NO.4057/M/2000. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED IN ITS AF FIDAVIT THAT HE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 19 96-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99 WOULD BE CONSOLIDATED AND THEN DECIDED. WE ARE THEREFORE , OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FROM APPEARING ON 14.9.2004 AND, THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 15.9.2004. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL IN DUE COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ST ANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH JULY, 2010 SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (S.V.MEHROTRA) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH JULY , 2010 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, MUMBA I 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CONCERNED MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH B, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI