RUPAM J PAREKH, V. ASST CIOT 12(1),

MA 86/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1880 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBER DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: HETAL PANCHAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. . . , , BEFORE S/SH. I.P.BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEM BER & SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.86/MUM/2014-ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2476 /MUM/2011-ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 MRS. RUPAM J. PAREKH, FORTUNE BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, 568, L.J.ROAD, FIVE GARDEN, MATUNGA(E) MUMBAI-400019 PAN: AADPP5451H VS. ACIT 12(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HETAL PANCHAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBER DAS ! ' #$ / DATE OF HEARING : 09-05-2014 %&'( ' #$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-05-2014 ) / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, A.M. VIDE HER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA),FILED ON 14 .02.2014,ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT APPEAL FILED BY HER WAS DISMISSED 07.10.2013.AS NOBODY HA D APPEARED ON THAT DAY,THAT SHE HAD APPOINTED ONE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT (CA)TO APPEAR ON HER BEHALF, THAT HE FAILED TO NOTE THE DATE OF HEARING IN HIS APPOINTMENT DIARY ,THAT BECAUSE OF L APSE ON PART OF THE CA NOBODY COULD APPEAR ON THAT DAY.APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCOM PANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.01.2014 WHEREIN SIMILAR AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,AUTHORISED R EPRESENTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT CA CONCERNED,BY MISTAKE, FORGOT TO NOTE DOWN T HE DATE OF HEARING IN HIS DIARY, THAT ASSESSEE WAS INTERESTED IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS, THAT ORDER DATED 07.10.2013 SHOULD BE RECALLED. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 4 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT ON 07.10.2013 NOBODY APPEARED ON HER BEHALF, THAT APPEAL FILED BY HER WA S DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR OPINION, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEA RANCE ON 07.10.2013.WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF CA ASSESSEE SHOULD N OT BE PENALISED AND APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE A RE RECALLING OUR ORDER DATED 07 TH OCTOBER 2013. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING ON 12.08.20 14, SO THAT MATTER CAN BE DECIDED ON MERITS. AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, SO NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WILL BE ISSUED. AS A RESULT,RECALLING OUR EARLIER ORDER,WE ALLOW TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. MA NO. 86/MUM/2014(ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2476/ MUM/2011) MRS. RUPAM J. PAREKH 2 *(+#, *(+#, *(+#, *(+#, -*# -*# -*# -*# . / . / . / . / 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 22- 3 22- 3 22- 3 22- 3 4# 4# 4# 4# 0 0 0 0 # # # # 56 5656 56 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE O PEN COURT ON 9 TH ,MAY, 2014. ) ' %&'( +7 0 09 +! 201 4 & ' 1! 8 SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P.BANSAL) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +! / MUMBAI, 0 /DATE: 09 .05.2014 SK ) ) ) ) ' '' ' # 2 # 2 # 2 # 2 ;2'# ;2'# ;2'# ;2'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ < = , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / < = 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 2>1 # - ?$ ?$?$ ?$ ?@ , . . . +! 6. GUARD FILE/ 1? A! 2# # //TRUE COPY// ) / BY ORDER, B / 5 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR -( , +! /ITAT, MUMBAI