RARE ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

MA 227/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves a miscellaneous application by the assessee, Rare Enterprises, against an appellate order concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The application sought the recall of the appellate order due to the incorrect representation of the assessee during the initial hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged that the presence of Ms. Poorva Gurav, a law student intern, was a mistake apparent from the record as she was not qualified under Section 288 of the Income Tax Act to represent the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order was based on the need to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the appeal with the correct legal representation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, Section 288 of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE; NAME OF POORVA GURAV WAS
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 227/MUM/2024 (In ITA No.1442/Mum/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rare Enterprises, 151, 15th Floor, Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 0021 (PAN : AAEFR8176J) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 7(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri S.C. Tiwari, Advocate Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is a miscellaneous application moved by assessee against the Appellate Order pronounced on 27.09.2024, in ITA No. 1442/Mum/2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, filed by Revenue. 2. Vide this miscellaneous application, assessee submits for recalling the appellate order in terms of Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of certain errors apparent from record. 3. In this respect relevant facts submitted by assessee are that, the appeal filed by Revenue was listed for hearing on 11.07.2024. Assessee appointed Mr. S.C. Tiwari, IRS(Retd) as its Counsel to 2 ITA No.3871/MUM/2024 Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2020-21 represent the assessee and argue the matter before the Bench in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Power of Attorney in this respect is placed on record. On the date of hearing, assessee moved an application, dated 10.07.2024, filed with the registry, seeking adjournment on the premise that Counsel, Mr. S.C. Tiwari is suffering from viral flu infection. On calling upon of the matter, on the date of hearing to address the application for adjournment, Ms. Poorva Gurav a Law student, working as intern in the office of Mr. S.C. Tiwari, stood up to take note of the order of Hon'ble Bench on the application of adjournment so filed. 4. Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that Cross Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.771/Mum/2024, for the same Assessment Year had already been heard on 19.06.2024 and since Accountant Member is common to hearing of that appeal as well as the impugned appeal, matter may be taken up. With the assistance of ld. Sr. DR, the matter was heard and an order was pronounced on 27.09.2024 in the impugned appeal (ITA No. 1442/Mum/2024). In the order so pronounced, for the Counsel present for assessee, name of Ms. Poorva Gurav was mentioned as her name was noted in the order sheet, dated 11.07.2024. On these facts, assessee submits that Ms. Poorva was present before the Bench only to note the next date of hearing and she did not appear on behalf of the assessee to argue the matter. In fact, she does not have the qualification u/s. 288 of the Act to appear on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order may be recalled for denovo fresh hearing in accordance with the provisions of law whereby the appointed Counsel be given opportunity to represent the assessee in the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is also brought to the knowledge of the Bench that appeal of assessee in ITA No.771/Mum/2024 has been released from being heard for fresh hearing on 20.12.2024. 3 ITA No.3871/MUM/2024 Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2020-21 5. We have considered the submissions made before us. Section 288 of the Act prescribes qualification for a person to represent the matter before any Income Tax authority or Appellate Tribunal in connection with proceedings under the Act. Authorised representative is given a meaning in sub section (2) to Section 288 of this Act. Considering the same, taking presence of Ms. Poorva Gurav who is an intern in the office of Mr. S.C. Tiwari and a Law student, is a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, considering the submissions made by the assessee in its application, we find it proper to recall the order so pronounced since assessee, in absence of its appointed Counsel did not get opportunity to make required submissions to contest the appeal filed by the Revenue. We thus, recall the impugned order and direct the registry to list the matter afresh in the regular course of hearing for denovo adjudication. Accordingly miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 10 February, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 10 February, 2025 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "