M.P. Mehrotra (HUF), New Delhi V. DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

MA 76/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3549 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH JALANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E ( FRIDAY) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 76(DEL)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2480(DEL)/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M.P.MEHROTRA (HUF), DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME C-561, DEFENCE COLONY, VS. TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 8, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110024. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI RAJESH JALANI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER ON 11.11.2009, IN WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN PARTICULAR, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT NONE ATTEN DED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2009, BEING THE DATE OF HEAR ING. THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 16.2.2010 STAT ING INTER-ALIA THAT THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.2009, FIXING THE HEARING ON 11.11.2009, WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, HE WA S NOT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING. AN AFFIDAVIT TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE APPLICATION. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, IT WAS PR AYED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED WITH A VIEW TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. MA NO. 76(DEL)/2010 2 2. THIS VERY FACT WAS CANVASSED BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 16.04.2010. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE APPLICATION. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE US. IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE THE NOTICE DATED 20.10.20 09 WAS ISSUED, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON ITS SERVICE ON THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN THE AVERMENT THAT THIS NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE THINK IT FIT TO RECALL THE ORDER SO THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED THAT THE AP PEAL SHALL BE HEARD ON 20.07.2010, FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE NOTICE WILL BE SERVED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.04.2010 SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (K.G.BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 16.04.2010. SP SATIA MA NO. 76(DEL)/2010 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: M.P.MEHROTRA (HUF), NEW DELHI. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8, NEW DELHI. CIT(A) CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.