, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & ! & ! & ! & ! ' ' ' ' BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ('(' ' ) . / M.AS NO.532/MUM./2012 ( . / ITA NO. 1429/MUM./2009 ) ( &) * '+* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200304 ) SUNILKUMAR O. KOCHHAR 6, GELEKI, ONGC BUILDING BANDRA RECLAMATION NEAR LILAVATI HOSPITAL BANDRA (W), MUMBAI 400 050 .. ' / APPLICANT ) V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE19(3), MUMBAI .... ,-./ / RESPONDENT !. . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AACPR3758C &) *1 2 3 / ASSESSEE BY : MR. N. SUBRAMANIAN !' 2 3 / REVENUE BY : MR. O.P. MEENA )' 2 / DATE OF HEARING 17.05.2013 $ 45+ 2 / DATE OF ORDER 17.05.2013 $ $ $ $ / ORDER # $% # $% # $% # $% , ,, , & ! & ! & ! & ! 6 6 6 6 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSES SEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE IMPUGNED EXPARTE ORDER DATED 18 TH MARCH 2010, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, IN ITA NO.1429/MUM./2009, FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 200304. THE ASSESSEE, IN THE M.A., VIDE PARA2, HAS STATED AS UNDER: SUNILKUMAR O. KOCHHAR 2 2. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APP LICANT IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED THE SAID APPEAL FOR SEEKING REDRESS AGAINST CERTAIN UNJUSTIFIED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DATE OF HEARING WAS CORRECTLY NOTED AS 18032010, THE BENCH WAS WRONGLY NOTED AS G BENCH INSTEAD OF E BENCH AND THE G BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING DURING THE PERIOD 15032010 TO 18032010. CONSEQUENTLY, NO ATTENDANCE WAS CAUSED ON THE 18032010. THE ABOVE WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH NO ATTENDANCE WAS CAUSED . 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, ACCORDINGLY, PRAYED THAT ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE. AN AFFIDAVIT DULY SWORN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPLICATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THEREFORE , PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND, HENCE, THE APPEAL BE RESTORED FOR HEARING ON MERIT. THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DID NOT OBJECT FOR RECALLING OF THE EXPARTE ORDER. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING. CONSEQUENTLY, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO RULE-24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 18 TH MARCH 2010, PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 23 RD JULY 2013. SINCE THIS DATE OF HEARING IS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, THE REQUIREMENT OF SENDING NOTICE TO THE PARTIES IS HEREBY DISPENSED W ITH. 4. 1 7 &) *1 2 ('(' ' ) !' 8 ) 9: ; 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES M.A. IS TREATED AS ALL OWED. $ 2 5+ < = )7 17 TH MAY 2013 5 2 ; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MAY 2013 SD/- . .. . . .. . ! ! ! ! P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- # # # # $% $% $% $% & ! & ! & ! & ! AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, = ) = ) = ) = ) DATED: 17 TH MAY 2013 SUNILKUMAR O. KOCHHAR 3 $ 2 ,( >(+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) &) *1 / THE ASSESSEE; (2) !' / THE REVENUE; (3) ? () / THE CIT(A); (4) ? / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) ('B ,&&) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) C* D / GUARD FILE. -( ,& / TRUE COPY $) / BY ORDER , . EF / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY '1G &) E' / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY H / 9 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI