DY COMM OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, THANE vs. SHRI KRISHNAMOORTHY RAMALINGAM MUDALIYAR, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the ex-parte order and agreed to hear the appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking recall of an ex-parte order passed by the ITAT. The assessee's counsel inadvertently missed the hearing date due to an error in their diary.

What were the issues?

Whether there was sufficient cause for the assessee's absence during the hearing, warranting the recall of an ex-parte order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “B” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri ABY T. Varkey (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Hearing: 14.07.2023Pronounced: 14.07.2023

Heard together (12 matters)

M.A. No. 308/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 404/Mum/2021
M.A. No. 309/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 405/Mum/2021
M.A. No. 310/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 406/Mum/2021
M.A. No. 311/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 407/Mum/2021
M.A. No. 312/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 408/Mum/2021
M.A. No. 313/Mum/2023
I.T.A. No. 409/Mum/2021

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

The assessee has filed these Miscellaneous Applications seeking recall of the common ex-parte order dated 31.10.2022 passed in the hands of the assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18.

2 M/s. Someshwar Spun Pvt. Ltd.

2.

The Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee had engaged Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Chartered Accountant to represent these appeals. However, it so happened that the counsel inadvertently did not note the date of hearing in his appointment diary and hence did not appear on the date of hearing. The Learned AR submitted that the assessee has explained the same in the miscellaneous petitions and has substantiated the same by filing an affidavit from the Counsel. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that there was sufficient cause for the assessee in not appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. Accordingly, he prayed for recall of the order passed ex-parte.

3.

We heard learned DR and perused the record. Having regard to the submissions made by learned AR, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the assessee in not appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. Accordingly, in exercise of powers given under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, we recall the impugned orders.

4.

The Learned AR submitted that the issue contested in these appeals relate to estimation of the income of the assessee and accordingly prayed that the appeals may also be taken up for hearing. The Learned DR also agreed to the same. Accordingly, the appeals were taken up for hearing and we deal with them by separate order.

5.

In the result, all the miscellaneous applications of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 14.7.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →