NUCLEOTCH MSI LTD, V. ITO RG WD NO 3,

MA 653/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0324 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B MUMBAI BEFORE . , , , , / / / / D. MANMOHAN, VP AND / ' ' ' ' #$%& #$%& #$%& #$%& , $ $$ $ . . SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 653/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7704/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI NUCLEOTECH MSI LTD., PLOT 55, NCZ, MIDC, TALOJA, NAVI MUMBAI- 410208 PAN: AACCN4703C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE, WARD- 3, PANVEL, DIST- RAIGAD. ( '( / APPLICANT ) ( )*'( / RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHREE DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR + ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 24-05-2013 ./ + ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-05-2013 0$1 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TH E A.Y. 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7704/MUM/2010) DTD. 10-09- 2012. 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AFF IDAVIT DTD. 20-12-2012 OF MR.ARUN KUMAR SAXENA, DIRECTOR OF ASSESSEE-COMP ANY SAYING THAT ASSESSEE WAS ABSENT BECAUSE OF NON RECEIPT OF ANY NOTICE AS PER HIS KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND REQUESTED FOR RECALL OF ORDER DATED 10-09-2012. I N THE SAID AFFIDAVIT MR.ARUN KUMAR SAXENA ALSO ADMITTED THAT ITS RECEIVING COUNTER ASS ISTANT COULD REALIZE ON 5-12-2012 THAT THE HEARING NOTICE WAS LYING IN HIS DRAWER WI THOUT ONWARD TRANSMISSION. HE WITH LOTS OF GUILT AND SORRY FEELING BROUGHT THE SAID NOTICE TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE DEPONENT THEREFORE ACCEPTED T HAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED AT DOCUMENT INWARD COUNTER BY THE DEALIN G ASSISTANT. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO FILE AF FIDAVIT OF RECEIVING COUNTER ASSISTANT TO THAT EFFECT. VIDE LETTER DATED 25-4-2 013 MR. AMIT CHAKRABORTY, RESIDENT OF SAMADDER BHAVAN, NEAR GANESH MANDIR, POST MOHO PADA, DIST. RAIGAD, PIN- 410222, MAHARASHTRA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 23-04- 2013. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE MA NO. 653/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7704/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 2 AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE THAT APPEAL NO. 7704/MUM/2010 WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10-09-2012. THE DEPONENT REC EIVED A LETTER FROM THE ITAT ON 09-07-2012, WHICH WAS A NOTICE OF HEARING OF APPEAL FIXED ON 10-09-2012. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPONENT WAS GOING ON LEAVE FRO M THE NEXT DAY OF RECEIVING THE SAID LETTER AND HIS HURRY AND BEFORE ANXIETY TO FI NISH THE PENDING WORK HE KEPT THE SAID LETTER IN HIS DRAWER WITH THE INTENTION OF GIV ING IT TO THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BUT BEFORE LEAVING OFFICE FOR THE DAY HE FORGOT TO GIVE IT TO THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE AR SUBMITTE D THAT AFTER RETURNED TO WORK AFTER A FORTNIGHT, THE DEPONENT GOT BUSY IN THE R OUTINES. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPONENT REALIZED THAT HE HAD COMMITTED A SERIOUS MISTAKE IN NOT BEIN G PROMPT IN SHOWING THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE PERSONS CONCERNED AND THAT THE SA ID NOTICE REMAINED IN HIS DRAWER UNATTENDED. HE WAS SEVERELY REPRIMANDED FOR THIS L APSE AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TOOK PROMPT STEPS TO MAKE GOOD THI S BLUNDER BY FILING ANOTHER AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT HEARING NOTICE H AS BEEN TRACED, THAT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT NOR ANY ADJOURNM ENT APPLICATION WAS FILED, THAT VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 10-09-2012, TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPE AL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NON-APPEARANCE WAS BECAUSE O F THE REASON THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED THE SERIOUS MISTAKE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE (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. 10-09- 2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES H AVE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 11-09-2013 AS INFORMED IN THE OPEN CO URT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON , 2013. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN) ( #$%& / RAJENDRA ) /VICE-PRESIDENT $- 02 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 30 DATE: 29.5.2013 SRL MA NO. 653/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7704/MUM/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 3 0$1 + ),4 5$4/, 0$1 + ),4 5$4/, 0$1 + ),4 5$4/, 0$1 + ),4 5$4/, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE *4, ), //TRUE COPY// 0$1 0$1 0$1 0$1 / BY ORDER, / # # # # DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI