ROHAN SHAH, V. ITO WD 21(1)(2),

MA 754/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6211 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PURSHOTTAMDAS SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR(AM) AND SMT ASHA VIJAYARA GHAVAN (JM) M.A. NO. 754/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 947/M/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05) SHRI ROHAN SHAH, 42, SNEHJYOT, VALLA BHNAGAR, JVPD SCHME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400 056 PAN-AAPPS1093F VS. THE ITO, WARD 21(1)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI PURSHOTTAMDAS SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HARI GOVIND SINGH O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SEEKS T O RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IT IS STATED IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANTS MOTHER IN HIS ABSENCE A ND SHE FORGOT TO INTIMATE IN TIME AND SHE GAVE THE NOTICE IN A CASUAL MANNER AFTER THE DATE OF HEARING. AS SUCH APPLICANT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEAR ING, AND SO COULD NOT APPEAR. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS PLEADED THAT DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN CAUSING APPEARANCE WAS DUE TO REASONABL E CAUSE. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT PRAYED THAT THE ORDER DT. 30.9.2010 S HOULD BE RECALLED. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER WE ARE SA TISFIED WITH THE REASON FOR THE DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN CAUS ING APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL OU R ORDER DT. 30.9.2010 AND M.A NO. 754/M/2010 2 DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR FRESH HE ARING ON 5 TH MAY 2011. SINCE THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT, NO FORMAL NOTI CE WILL BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES FOR THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL ON 5.5.2011. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR) { ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2011. RJ COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI M.A NO. 754/M/2010 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 2.03.2011 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 2.03.2011 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ S R. PS/PS 8. 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO AR _________ ______ 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______