Yes Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench,

Before : Anil H. Laddhad, Prothonotary & Senior Master Date : 04th February, 2026 FOR HEARING AND FINAL DISPOSAL :

CHOL/91/2026 in WPL/13301/2024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Mr. Atul Jasani, Advocate for the applicant.

P.C.:

The present Chamber Order is e-filed by the applicant for setting aside Order dated 26.11.2025, rejecting captioned Petition under O.S.Rule 986 for non-compliance of office objections.

Ld. Advocate submits that respondents were served with the Chamber Order and Affidavit of Service is e-filed. Despite service, none appeared for the respondents.

Heard ld. Advocate for the applicant. Perused Affidavit in Support, contents of which are self-explanatory. It is contended that Advocate on record was not aware about listing of the matter and Order passed in the Petition, therefore, office objections could not be complied with. Ld. Advocate submits that now he will pursue with the captioned Petition diligently and prays for restoration of the same.

Considering grounds raised in Affidavit, I am of the view that the applicant should get one opportunity to pursue with the captioned Petition. No prejudice would cause to the respondents since they can contest the Petition on its own merits. Hence, in the interest of justice, the present Chamber Order is granted as prayed.

The petitioner to remove office objections of Petition and get the same registered and/or numbered by filing/uploading compliance praecipe within two weeks from the date of uploading of order, failing Petition to stand rejected for non-compliance of office objections under O.S.Rule 986.

Date : 04.02.2026 Prothonotary and Senior Master Digitally signed by RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA Date:

2026.02.05 11:52:12 +0530 RAJEEV VIJAY ACHARYA