JAY VIJAY CONSTRUCITON CO., V. CIT,

MA 606/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0025 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUR G AGARWAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J MUMBAI . . , . / BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER / AND , . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 606/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3123/MUM/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 JAY VIJAY CONSTRUCTION CO., B-3, DEV ASHIH BUILDING, NEAR POLICE STATION, BHAYANDER (W), DIST: THANE 401 101. PAN: AAAFJ 9115 F VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (THANE), 1 ST FLOOR, VARDHAN BUILDING, MIDC, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE. ( APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MADHUR G. AGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. MEENA / DATE OF HEARING : 22 -03-2013 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 -03-2013 $% / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 3123/MUM/2009 DTD. 07-05-2012. 2. THE APPLICANT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION DTD. 26-09-2 012 SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT DTD. 16-07-2012 OF MR. JITENDRA L. CHANDARANA, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF M/S. JAY VIJAY CONSTRUCTION CO., MUMBAI, INTER ALIA STATED THAT W HEN THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22-03-2012 THROUGH NOTICE BOARD, AS IT MENTIONED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE SAME DID NOT COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH E APPELLANT WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING. IT WAS, THER EFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. MA NO. 606/MUM/2012 JAY VIJAY CONSTRUCTION CO 2 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE (DR) DID NOT OBJECT TO THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SATISFIE D ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDING LY THE EX-PARTE ORDER DTD. 07-05-2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PAR TIES HAVE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 03-07-2013 AS INFORMED IN THE OPE N COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 ND MARCH, 2013. $% !'# & '$( 22 ) , 2013 ' * + SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R. MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) $- / JUDICIAL MEMBER $- / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, '$/ DATE: 22 ND MARCH, 2013 TNMM $% $% $% $% /0 /0 /0 /0 10# 10# 10# 10# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE 20 / //TRUE COPY// $% $% $% $% / BY ORDER, 3 33 3 / 4 4 4 4 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI