CHHUTTANLALL MATTURMAL, V. ITO 21(1)(1),

MA 699/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0338 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJN EESH K ARVIND
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , / , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 699/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5371/MUM/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. CHUTTANLALL MATTUMAL, 55, SWASTIK PLAZA, V.L. MEHTA ROAD, JVPD, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 049. VS. I.T.O. 21(1)(1), MUMBAI. PAN: AADFC 1390 E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJNEESH K. ARVIND ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 19-04-2013 $%& ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-04-2013 ' / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) FILED BY THE PA RTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 5371/MUM/2011 DTD. 11-06-2012. 2. IN THE APPLICATION PARTNER SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL WA S FILED ON 18-07-2011 AND HE HAD RECEIVED AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE OF HE ARING, THAT IN THAT NOTICE, DATE OF HEARING WAS MENTIONED AS 04-06-2012, THAT HE APP OINTED MR. RAJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE AS HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR), THA T HE AND HIS ADVOCATE BOTH WERE UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT A SEPARATE NOTICE IN TIMATING DATE OF HEARING WOULD BE ISSUED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE APPLICANT, THAT NOBOD Y APPEARED ON 04-06-2012 AND MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 11-06-2012 , THAT NON-ATTEN DANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NEITHER DUE TO ANY NEGLIGENCE NOR WAS THERE ANY WIL LFUL DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANTS TO ADVOCATE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 05-11 -2012 FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 3. BEFORE US, AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS APPEARING IN THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FI RM. HE SUBMITTED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 11-06-2012 MAY BE RE-CALLED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) DID NOT OBJECT TO THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER. M.A. NO. 699/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 5371/MUM/2011) 2 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEING SATISFIED 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. 11-06- 2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RECALLED. PARTIES H AVE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE OF HEARING ON 17-06-2013, AS INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT. ACCORDINGLY THE MA 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 19 TH APRIL, 2013 ' ! $%& ( ) 19 *+,2013 % ! 1 2 SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ) / DATE: 19 TH APRIL, 2013 TNMM ' ' ' ' ! !! ! *'3 *'3 *'3 *'3 43&' 43&' 43&' 43&' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE 53' *' //TRUE COPY// ' ' ' ' / BY ORDER, 6 66 6 / 7 7 7 7 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI