Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

317 ITR 433High Court2009#457 most cited

What is Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT authority for?

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT · 317 ITR 433 · delayed orders · recall of orders · fresh hearing · Appellate Tribunal guidelines · violation of natural justice · section 253

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7284/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7284/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd Acit-7(3)(1) T-8B, 5Th Floor, Phoenix House, A-Wing Room No.142 G बनाम/ Phoenix Mill Compound Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 462 Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-2914-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.Ar ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 26/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest Certain Additions / Adjustment Made In Final Assessment Order Dated 17/10/2018 Passed By Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-7(3)(1), Mumbai [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13), Pursuant To The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Urvi A. Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit -Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 92C(1)

…he hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression “ordinarily” has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that “We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that beha…