HARESH PAHUJA, v. ASST. CIT COR 24(1),

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI P.M. JAGT AP (AM) MA NO.580/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5390/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MR. HARESH PAHUJA 208 HEMU CLASSIC OPP. NEW ERA CINEMA S.V. ROAD MALAD (W) MUMBAI-64. ..( APPLICANT ) P.A. NO. (AHQPP 7525 C) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-24(1) MUMBAI. ..( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : MS. A ARTI VISSANJI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. SINGH O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL IN ITA NO.5390/MUM/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE APPLICANT VIDE HIS PETITION DATED 18.9.2010 SUP PORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.9. 2010 INTERALIA STATED THAT : 1. THAT THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL WAS F IXED ON 05.03.2010 THAT THE APPELLANT MADE AN APPLICATIO N FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 16.04.2010. 2. UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE WOULD RECEIVE A FR ESH NOTICE THE APPELLANT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE HEARING FIXED ON 5.5.2010. MA NO.580/M/10 A.Y:06-07 2 3. HOWEVER SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PERSONALLY PRESENT NOR HAD AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON TO REMAIN PRE SENT UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT A FRESH NOTICE WOULD B E ISSUED HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE HEARING HAD BEEN RE FIXED ON 28.7.2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE MATTER REMAINED UNATTENDED ON 28.7.2010 AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSE D EXPARTE. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN ASSESSEES APPLICATION THE EXPARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED WHICH WAS NOT O BJECTED TO BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RI VAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER HAVING SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 28.7.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS REC0AL LED. PARTIES ARE TO APPEAR WITHOUT WAITING FOR ANY NOTICE ON 14.03.20 11 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.01.2011. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.580/M/10 A.Y:06-07 3 MUMBAI DATED: 28.01.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.