AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA, V. ITO RG 20(10(1),

MA 624/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0949 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . !!#$% & ' ' ' ' BEFORE SRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM M.A.NO.623/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ./ I.T.A. NO. 3805 /MUM/2011 ( ( ( ( ( )( )( )( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ) M.A.NO.624/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ./ I.T.A. NO. 3806 /MUM/2011 ( ( ( ( ( )( )( )( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ) AARTI JAGMOHAN MEHTA, 605-A, BREEZE, 3 RD , CROSS LANCE, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI(W), MUMBAI. / VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, RANGE-20(1)(1), MUMBAI. * & ./ PAN : AANPM8050D ( *+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT ) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : NONE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.S.RANA . 0& / DATE OF HEARING : 06-09-2013 12) . 0& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 -09-2013 3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING TO RECALL THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 19.03 .2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3805/MUM/2011 IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRI BUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE MISCELLAENOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 06.09.2013 . BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS DUE TO S UFFERING FROM JAUNDICE AND ADVISED COMPLETE BED REST. THE FACTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSES SEE WAS PREVENTED FROM REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. IT HAS ACCORDINGLY BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER HEARING THE A SSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL TH E ORDER DATED 06.09.2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGI NAL NUMBER WHICH WOULD BE HEARD ON 10.12.2013. THE DATE OF HEARING W AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE NO FORMAL NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE REGIS TRY. 4. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /09/2013 3 . 12) & 4 06 /09/2013 , 2 . 5 SD/- ( I.P.BANSAL ) SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 /DATED : 6 TH SEPTEMBER , 2013. SHEKHAR. P.S. 3 3 3 3 . .. . ,067 ,067 ,067 ,067 87)0 87)0 87)0 87)0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT- , MUMBAI. 4. 9 / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 7:5 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5;( < / GUARD FILE. 3 3 3 3 / BY ORDER, -70 ,0 //TRUE COPY// = == = / > > > > ? ? ? ? (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI