M/s. Michell Bearings (India) Pvt.Ltd, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

MA 95/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5137 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY DAVE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH: B BEFORE SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P.NO.95(BANG)/2010 (IN ITA NO.611(BANG)/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S.MICHELL BEARING (INDIA) PVT.LTD. NO.8D, ATTIBELE INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE. PETITIONER VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT PETITIONER BY: SHRI SANJAY DAVE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRATAP SINGH. O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 3 0-10-2009 DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.611(BANG )/2008. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE CASE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE A NUMBER O F TIMES AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MO NTHS ON 29-4-2009 AS A SIMILAR MATTER WAS PENDING BEFORE SP ECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HEARING WAS POSTED TO 7-10-2009. BUT SINCE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS NOT IN MP 95(BANG)/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3 TOWN, AN ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS FILED ON 5-10-2009 . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AN EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 30-1 0-2009 OBSERVING THAT THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON MORE THAN THREE OCCASIONS BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS TO BE DECID ED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE DR AND ON THE BASIS OF MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE THREE ISSUES TO BE DECIDE D IN THE APPEAL BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ONLY ONE ISS UE AND OTHER TWO ISSUES WERE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. HE THUS PRA YED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND THE ASSES SEE MAY BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING ITS CASE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, OPPOS ED THE SAID APPLICATION STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THREE ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT ONLY ONE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ORDER DATED 30-10-2009. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD JUSTIFYING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS REGARDS ISSUES 2 AND 3. W E ALSO FIND THAT EVEN ON ISSUE NO.1, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HEARD AT ALL. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AND IN VIEW OF RULE 25 OF THE ITAT RULES, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RECALL THE ORDER IN ITS E NTIRETY AND POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 27-12-2010. AS BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE MP 95(BANG)/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3 BEEN INFORMED OF THE DATE IN THE OPEN COURT, NO FRE SH NOTICE NEED BE GIVEN. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2010 SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SMT.P.MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2010 EKS COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE