Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link: https://ims.go2customer.com
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft info@binarysoft.com
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: VAT Audit :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: cpt :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 Bhushan Steel vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Chaphalkar Brothers Pune (Supreme Court)
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal : Kolkata Benches : Kolkata. Sub : Cause List For The Cases Fixed On Friday The 15/12/2017
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
 Sunbeam Auto Private Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Sc Johnson Products Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range-8, New Delhi
  Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Stovekraft India vs. CIT (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
 CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court)
 DCIT vs. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. B. C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd.

Neena Variya, 602, Shree Aashirward CHS, Shankar Lane, Opp. Shankar Mandir, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 101 Vs. Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), Mumbai
September, 15th 2015
                 ""   
  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI

         BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND
                     SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM

                           ./MA No. 28/Mum/2015
                      (Arising out of ITA No. 4328/Mum/2012)
                   (   / Assessment Years: 2008-09)

Neena Variya,                                      Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1),
602, Shree Aashirward CHS,                         Mumbai
                                          /
Shankar Lane, Opp. Shankar Mandir,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 101             Vs.

     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAJPU 6475 A
   (Applicant)     :           (Respondent)

                        Applicant by         :    Shri N. M. Porwal
                       Respondent by         :    Shri Aarsi Prasad

                        /
                                             :    11.09.2015
                 Date of Hearing
                     /
                                             :    11.09.2015
          Date of Pronouncement

                                    / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:

      This is a Miscellaneous Petition by the Assessee u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (`the Act' hereinafter) r/w Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)
Rules, 1963 qua an appellate order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Tribunal
u/s.254(1) of the Act, disposing its captioned appeal.
                                          2
                                               MA No. MA No. 28/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09)
                                                                    Neena Variya vs. ITO




2.     The tribunal had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine on the ground of
non-prosecution, drawing support from the decisions in the case of CIT vs. B. N.
Bhattachargee & Others [1979] 118 ITR 461 (Cal) and CIT vs. Multiplan India (P)
Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del). The assessee has now moved an application, stating
that the non-appearance by the ld. counsel, Shri N. M. Porwal, the ld. Authorized
Representative (AR) before us, on the date of hearing, was on account of his being out
of station on a pre-scheduled visit. Further, though he was to return back on the
morning of 25.07.2013, i.e., the date of hearing, itself, he could, due to unforeseen
circumstances, return only on 26.07.2013, resulting in non-attendance during hearing.
No adjournment motion had been made as he intended to attend the hearing. An
Affidavit dated 16.01.2015 by the said counsel, averring the same, stands also
enclosed. Further, relying on the decision in the case of, among others, CIT vs. S.
Chenniappa Mudaliar [1969] 74 ITR 41 (SC), it is sought to be canvassed that the
tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal in the manner done in-as-much as it is
obliged to decide the same on merits, i.e., even granting the hearing of the appeal ex
parte for the default of the appellant.

3.     We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record, with the ld.
Departmental Representative (DR) also not refuting the contents of the affidavit, filed
along with the instant application. We are, under the circumstances, satisfied that the
default of non-appearance by the ld. counsel on the date of hearing of the appeal was
for good and sufficient reasons, and that the in limine dismissal of its appeal had
caused prejudice to the assessee. We, accordingly, in exercise of the power u/s.
254(2), relying on the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Chenniappa
Mudaliar (supra), direct restitution of the assessee's appeal for a decision on merits
after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Registry is
hereby directed to post the case for the same in due course. We decide accordingly.
                                          3
                                               MA No. MA No. 28/Mum/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09)
                                                                    Neena Variya vs. ITO




4.    In the result, the assessee's Miscellaneous Application is allowed.
                  

 Order pronounced in the open court on September 11, 2015 at the conclusion of the
                                     hearing

               Sd/-                                    Sd/-
     (Shailendra Kumar Yadav)                      (Sanjay Arora)
         / Judicial Member                           / Accountant Member
 Mumbai;  Dated : 11.09.2015
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Applicant
2.      / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.      / CIT - concerned
5.                ,     ,   / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard File
                                                  / BY ORDER,




                                         /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                 ,   / ITAT, Mumbai

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Outsourcing Company Offshore Software Outsourcing Software Outsourcing Company India Offshore Outsourcing Company India Software BPO Software Business Process Outsourcing Software Outsourcing India Offsho

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions