B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM M.A. NO.80/M/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 7655/M/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 2008 ) SHRI NITIN DATTARAM SAMANT, PROP. SAMARTH ERECTORS & DEVELOPERS, 34/365, NILGIRI CHSL, SAMTA NAGAR, KANDIVALI (E), MUMBAI 400 101. / VS. ACIT - 25(3), MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AAGPS5876C ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANUJ KIS NADWALA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAVED AKTAR, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .10.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.3.2015 REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 5.9.2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.7655/M/2010 (AY:2007 - 2008 ) . THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE SAID APPEAL EX - PARTE AS NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASON FOR NON - COMPLIANCE WAS DUE TO UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE COMMITTED BY AN EM PLOYEE. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, L EARNED AR BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND READ OUT THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 8.9.2015 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1 2. ..... 3 .. 4. I SAY THAT THE NON - REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOT DUE TO ANY DELIBERATE OR MALAFIDE INTENTION ON PART OF THE APPELLANT BUT FOR UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE COMMITTED BY THE FIRMS ACCOUNTANT, MR. SAMIR THAKER IN NOT PASSING ON THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE COUNSEL ALONG WITH THE RELEV ANT PAPERS. 5. I FURTHER SAY THAT SINCE THE SAID ACCOUNTANT, MR. SAMIR THAKER HAS LEFT THE SERVICES OF THE FIRM SINCE AUGUST, 2012 DUE TO HIS ILLNESS AND IS NOT RESIDING IN MUMBAI, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO PLACE THE FACTS BEFORE THE HONBLE TRI BUNAL WITHOUT THE AID OF HIS AFFIDAVIT WITH A FERVENT PRAYER FOR RECALL OF THE EX - PARTE ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 6. I STATE AND SUBMIT THAT WHATEVER STATED ABOVE AS WELL AS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 24 OF IT (AT) RULES IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 2 3. THUS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE MATTER WAS NOT ATTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E., 5.9.2012 . FURTHER, LD COUNSEL PRAYED THAT TH E APPEAL MAY BE RECALLED UNDER PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE RULES, 1963 AND PLACE THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS. LEARNED DR WAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THIS AVERMENT S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DULY SUPP ORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED ON 5.9.2012 . WE ARE THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THER E IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - COMPLIANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY , IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, WE RECALL THE EX - PARTE ORDER DATED 5.9.2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04.01.2016 . THE DATE OF HEARING IS ANN OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, NO FORMAL NOTICE OF HEARING IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT I MMEDIATELY AFTER COMPLETION OF HEARING ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 16.10 .2014. . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI