Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's Authorized Representative sought an adjournment due to the unavailability of Form-36. The Revenue had filed the appeal in March 2019, and despite multiple hearings, the assessee's AR had sought adjournments on various grounds, but never for the non-availability of Form-36.
Held
The Tribunal rejected the adjournment application as the assessee's AR had not previously raised the issue of Form-36 availability. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal without considering the contrary findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case.
Key Issues
Whether the adjournment application should be granted when the issue of Form-36 availability was not raised earlier and the CIT(A) order did not consider relevant High Court judgments.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) DCIT, M/s. K.N. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Circle-14(1), 517-A, Narain Manzil, New Delhi Vs. 23, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AADCK0599E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None (Adjournment Application) Department by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/05/2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, New Delhi [CIT(A) in short], dated 19.12.2018 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee has sought adjournment vide letter dated 19th May, 2025 by observing that the copy of Form-36 was not available with them. It is seen that the present appeal was filed by the Revenue way back in March, 2019 and, after that on various occasions, the appeal was listed for hearing DCIT vs. K. N. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and except for three occasions when one Ms. Monalisa Maity appeared and sought adjournment, none was present on behalf of the assessee. It is surprising that even after so much of the time the assessee never asked for supply of Form-36. It is further seen that on earlier occasions, the adjournment was sought by the AR on the ground that the arguing counsel was out of the station or the paper book in this case has not been filed but never stated that Form 36 was not filed.
Looking to these facts, we are unable to accept the request of the AR for adjournment and, therefore, adjournment application of the assessee is rejected and the appeal is decided on merits.
After going through the records, it is seen that the assessee has filed certain documents with regard to the claim of brought forwarded unabsorbed business losses and after considering the same, the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is further seen that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-9 in & 388/2025 vide order dated 13.01.2016 has already dealt this issue and given contrary findings, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the said judgment while allowing the appeal of the assesse.
Looking to these facts, the matter is sent back to the file of the AO with directions to be considered the claim to the assessee in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and decide the same DCIT vs. K. N. Infracon Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal
of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.05.2025.