Aimil Pharmaceuticals (I) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 656/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4932 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K AGARWAL AR MS SWETA BANSAL

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) MA NO. 656/DEL/2018 (IN ITA NO. 2334/DEL/2015) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) AIMIL PHARMACEUTICALS (I) LTD, 2994/4, GALI NO. 17, RANJEET NAGAR, NEW DELHI PAN: AAACA6166D VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. K. AGARWAL, AR MS. SWETA BANSAL, CA REVENUE BY: SHRI BHAGWATI CHARAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 10/09 / 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 9 / 09 / 2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2334/DEL/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHICH IS PRONOUNCED ON 14/08/2018 FOR NONE PROSECUTION , AS ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. NOW IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 30.05.2015 MR. LALIT MOHAN, MANAGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE HEARING ON 30.05.2015 AND NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING ON 14.08.2018 BUT SUCH DIARY GOT MISPLACED AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING. AN AFFIDAVIT ALSO SWORN BY MR. LALIT MOHAN HAS BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 3. THE LD AR REFERRED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKE IS UNINTENTIONAL AND BONAFIDE AND THEREFORE , THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH MAY BE RECALLED. 4. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE REASON GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF MR. LALIT MOHAN WHO THOUGH RECORDED THE DATE OF NEXT HEARING BUT UNFORTUNATELY COULD NOT REMAIN PAGE | 2 PRESENT ON THAT DATE AS HIS DIARY GOT MISPLACED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO NOT TO R E CALL THE ABOVE ORDER AS THE ORDER IS NOT PASSED ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. PROVISION OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES GIVES OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL WITH A SUITABLE APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NONE PROSECUTION INSTEAD OF DECIDE IT ON MERITS. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF OP SANGWAN VS. ITO 94 TAXMANN.COM 394 (DEL). ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RECALL THE ORDER PASSED FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ON 02.12.2021 . THIS DATE HAS BEEN NOTED B Y BOTH THE PARTIES. 6. ACCORDINGLY, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 / 09 / 2021 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 9 / 09 / 2021 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI