DUFLON POLYMERS P. LTD, v. ACIT RG 8(1),

1 MA NO.428/MUM/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH MUMBAI BENCH K KK K MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI D MANMOHAM VP & SHRI D MANMOHAM VP & SHRI D MANMOHAM VP & SHRI D MANMOHAM VP & SHRI R K PANDA AM SHRI R K PANDA AM SHRI R K PANDA AM SHRI R K PANDA AM MA NO. 428/MUM/2010 MA NO. 428/MUM/2010 MA NO. 428/MUM/2010 MA NO. 428/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6884/MUM/2004 (ASST YEAR 2002-03) M/S DUFLON POLYMERS P LTD 3 NLDHARA APTS GROUND FLOOR SRADHANAND EXTN ROAD VILE PARLE EAST MUMBAI 57 VS THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(1) MUMBAI (APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN PAN PAN PAN AAACD1668G AAACD1668G AAACD1668G AAACD1668G ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA REVENUE BY: SHRI SHRAVAN KUMAR O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER R K PANDA: PER R K PANDA: PER R K PANDA: PER R K PANDA: THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON REQUESTS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY IT FOR NON APPEARANCE. 2 THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON- APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE BROUGHT TO THE NOT ICE OF THE BENCH THE FOLLOWING WHICH WAS STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION: THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THEY COULD NOT APPEAR O N THE DAY OF HEARING AS THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RETAINED BY THE ACCOUN TANT MR ANAND CHOUDHARY DEALING WITH TAX MATTERS AND WHO SUBSEQUE NTLY LEFT THE ORGANIZATION. THE ACCOUNTANT MR ANAND CHOUDHARY WOU LD GENERALLY RECEIVE ALL MAILS/NOTICES PERTAINING TO INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT/APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE WOULD USUALLY PUT UP THESE MAILS/NOTI CES TO MR RAJENDRA BHATT (DIRECTOR)/ MR SHAILESH MEHTA (MANAGING DIREC TOR) FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. IT APPEARS THAT THE ACCOUNTANT DID NO T COMMUNICATE THE SAME TO THE MANAGEMENT WHICH HAS LED TO THE NON APPEARAN CE. 2 MA NO.428/MUM/2010 HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE A SSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE ITS CASE ON MERIT. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE SATISFIED TH AT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH NON APPE ARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. WE THEREFORE RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL. THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.3.2011 WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT. IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING WILL B E ISSUED TO WHICH BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED. 4 IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING I.E ON 7TH JAN 2011. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN D MANMOHAN ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT ( R K PANDA ) ( R K PANDA ) ( R K PANDA ) ( R K PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 7 TH JAN 2011 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR ITAT MUMBAI