SAVITRI ENTERPRISES, V. ITO 7(2)(4),

MA 56/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3630 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K ESHKAMAT
• Assessee Lawyers: J B SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN (VICE PRESIDENT) & SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, AM & M.A.NO.56/MUM/2010 - A.Y 2003-04 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.5074/MUM/2006] M/S SAVITRI ENTERPRISES, PACKING PAPER PRODUCTS COMPOUND, B CROSS RD., MIDC AREA, ANDHERI [EAST] MUMBAI 400 093. PAN NO.AAOFAS 2060 A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(2)(4), MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. J.B.SHAH. REVENUE BY : MR. KESHKAMAT. O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 20 TH OCTOBER 2008 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO.5075/MUM/2010. IN THE SAID ORD ER THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMIT TED AS THE NOTICE SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE HAD RETURNED UNCLAIMED AND NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN COMMUNI CATED. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SUNILKUMAR GOENKA THE WORKING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER FINANCE ACCOUNTS AND TAX MATT ERS WAS SUFFERING FROM CANCER AS A RESULT OF WHICH HE WAS NOT ATTENDI NG OFFICE FROM 1-11-2007 TO 30-11-2008 WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR TH E NON SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS 2 ENCLOSED A MEDICAL REPORT OF SHRI SUNILKUMAR GOENKA AND HAS REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT ASSESSEE COUL D BE HEARD IN THE MATTER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECO RDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. WE ARE SATISFIED T HAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 08 OF THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE SAME COULD BE DISPOSED OF AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD ON 14- 7-2010. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND, THEREFORE, NO FOR MAL NOTICE OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (RAJENDRA SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 19 TH APRIL, 2010. P/-* 3