HASTIMAL J JAIN, v. ITO WD 14(1)(2),

MA 298/MUM/2011 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29819924 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AEXPS4207A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 298/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant HASTIMAL J JAIN,
Respondent ITO WD 14(1)(2),
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 02-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 02-09-2011
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 24-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCONTANT MEMBER MA NOS.298 AND 299/MUM/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.910 AND 911/M/2010 FOR A.YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 HASITMAL J. JAIN PLOT NO.A-5 CROSS ROAD B M.I.D.C. ANDHERI EAST MUMBAI -400 093 ....... APPLICANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1)(2) MUMBAI ..... RESPONDENT PAN: AEXPS 4207 A APPLICANT BY: SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PARTHASARATHI NAIK DATE OF HEARING: 02.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.09.2011 O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR JM THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A PRAYER THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESS EES APPEAL BEING ITA NO.910 AND 911/MUM/2010 DATED 25.05.2010 MAY BE RECALLED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATIONS. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 200 0-01 AND 2001- 02 BEING ITA NOS.910 & 911/MUM/2010 AND THE SAID AP PEALS WERE DISPOSED OFF DISMISSING THE SAME VIDE ORDER DATED 2 5.05.2010 ON THE MAS 298 & 299/MUM/2011 HASITMAL J. JAIN 2 REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTING THE APPEALS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE LD. D.R. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED A NOTICE OF HEARING AND HENCE THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE HEARING. 4. WE FIND THAT POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE RETURNED BA CK THE NOTICES SENT TO THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE WITH THE REMARKS NO T KNOWN. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE ADDR ESS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR OPINION EVEN THOUGH POSTAL AUTHORITIES HAVE RETURNED THE NOTICES WITH T HE REMARK NOT KNOWN THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT PR OPERLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE RECALL THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.910 AND 911/MUM/2010 DATED 25.05.2010 AN D RESTORE BOTH THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON MERIT. BOTH THE AP PEALS ARE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.10.2011 AND NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEA RING WILL BE ISSUED TO BOTH THE PARTIES AS THE DATE OF THE HEARI NG IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)CONCERNED ..MUMBAI 4) THE CIT- CONCERNED ..MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. SMC BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN MAS 298 & 299/MUM/2011 HASITMAL J. JAIN 3 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 02.09.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02.09.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER