PRADNYA MUNDE, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 21(2)(5), MUMBAI

MA 778/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5780 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURU
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS DEEPA KHARE

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , , . / M.A NO. 778/MUM./2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 13 ) SMT. PRADNYA MUNDE FLAT NO.1201, POORNA, WORLI SAGAR SOC. SIR POCHKHANWALA ROAD, WORLI MUMBAI 400 025 PAN AFVPM4963Q . / APP LICANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(2)(5), MUMBAI .... / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : MRS. DEEPA KHARE / REVENUE BY : SHRI M.V. RAJGURU / DATE OF HEARING 06 .0 4 .201 8 / DATE OF ORDER 27/04/2018 / ORDER , / PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. BY THIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2017, PASSED IN ITA NO.4911/MUM./2016. 2 . IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF THE C OUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED, ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND 2 PRADNYA MUNDE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX PARTE. THEREFORE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, IN EX ERCISE OF POWER UNDER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE, 1963, THE TRIBUNAL MAY CONSIDER RECALLING THE APPEAL ORDER AND HEARING THE APPEAL AFRESH. 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , ON THE DATE OF HE ARING OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR NOR THE PETITION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE BENCH PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE ON MERIT. HOWEVER, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISC. APPLICATION AND CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WE ARE S ATISFIED THAT DUE TO SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THOUGH, IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD , AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT , IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER RULE 24, WE RECALL THE ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE 2017 AND RESTORE THE APPEAL TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION. THE REGISTRY IS D IRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE BENCH IN REGULAR COURSE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, M.A. IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/08/2018 SD/ - RAJENDRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 27/08/2018 3 PRADNYA MUNDE / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI .