Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Chandani Gems P. Ld, vs Ito 5(1)(3), on 28 December, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंब ु ई यायपीठ सी, मंब ु ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES "C", MUMBAI ी जोिग दर सह, उपा य एवं ी शमीम याहया, याहया लेखा सद य, के सम ।
Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member M.A. No.294/Mum/2016 (Arising out of ITA NO.7323/MUM/2012) Assessment Year-2006-07 M/s Chandani Gems Pvt. ITO-5(1)(3), Ltd. बनाम/ Mumbai 210, Roopraj Building, Vs. 497, S.V. P. Road, Mumbai-400098 PAN No. AACCC7539D ( नधा रती /Assessee) (राज व /Revenue) नधा रती क ओर से / Assessee by Shri M. Subramanian राज व क ओर से / Revenue by Shri Abdul Hakeem-DR ु वाई क तार!ख / Date of Hearing :
सन 28/12/2018
आदे श क तार!ख /Date of Order: 28/12/2018
2 M.A. No.294/Mum/2016
( A r is i n g o u t o f IT A N o . 7 3 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 2 ) M / s C h an d an i G e m s P v t . L td .
आदे श / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Vice President) By way of this miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), the assessee seeks recalling an order dated 31/05/2016, which was not decided on merit.
2. During hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri M. Subramanina, fairly agreed that though there is a mistake on the part of the assessee in not appearing on the appointed dates still a lenient view is required as the assessee has already paid Rs.5000/-, imposed as a cost, upon the assessee to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, therefore, the order may be recalled. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri Abdul Hakeem, contended that admittedly, the order has not been decided on merit but still the assessee had been very casual in its approach and did not appear on the appointed dates and even did not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 3 M.A. No.294/Mum/2016
( A r is i n g o u t o f IT A N o . 7 3 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 2 ) M / s C h an d an i G e m s P v t . L td .
2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, fact is concerned, these are on record. Admittedly, on the appointed dates, the assessee did not appear and the Bench was constrained to pass an order. At the same time, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non- prosecution, therefore, following the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd. vs ITAT (2013) 359 ITR 371 (Bom.) and further since the assessee has already deposited Rs.5000/-, imposed as a cost, therefore, we deem it appropriate to recall the order of the Tribunal dated 31/05/2016. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal of the assessee for fresh hearing for 12/03/2019. It was made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the assessee. Since, the date was pronounced in the open court, no separate notice of hearing shall be issued to the assessee. This miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed.
4 M.A. No.294/Mum/2016
( A r is i n g o u t o f IT A N o . 7 3 2 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 2 ) M / s C h an d an i G e m s P v t . L td .
Finally, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed.
This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28/12/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Shamim Yahya) (Joginder Singh)
लेखा सद#य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT
मब
ंु ई Mumbai; $दनांक Dated : 28/12/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/. न.स.
आदे श क $%त'ल(प अ)े(षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ( / The Appellant (Respective assessee)
2. )*यथ( / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आय, ु त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आय, ु त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai,
5. /वभागीय ) त न2ध, आयकर अपील!य अ2धकरण, मब ुं ई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ुं ई / ITAT, Mumbai