NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, SIKAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 720/JPR/2013Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 April 2017AY 2008-092 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee had repeatedly sought adjournments on various pretexts, indicating a lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeals were filed with a delay and had been adjourned numerous times at the assessee's request.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the repeated seeking of adjournments by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Chand(Adj.application rejected)
For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Hearing: 23/03/2017

PER: DIVA SINGH. J.M. Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee on identical issue, accordingly, for the sake of convenience; they are being decided by a common order.

2.

In both the appeals, the assessee assail the correctness of the separate orders dated 27/02/2013 of CIT(A)-III, Jaipur pertaining to 2008-09 and 2009-10 assessment years on various grounds. However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment application was placed on behalf of the counsel namey Shri Vikas Rajvanshi stating that he was out of station for conducting a bank audit and time was sought. The record shows that both the appeals were filed by the assessee on 30/08/2013. The delay of 111 days has been pointed out in both the appeals by the Registry. The appeals have come up for hearing on almost 13 occasions over the years and on most of the occasions, have been adjourned on the request of the assessee. The Record shows that on 30/11/2015, 05/2/2016, 07/4/2016, 11/5/2016, 13/06/2016 etc., the appeal has been adjourned on the request of the assessee. Record also shows that on 30/11/2015 adjournment was sought in order to prepare a paper book. On 03/2/2016 the counsel was stated to be out of station, on 07/4/2016 the reason for adjournment was bank audit of State Bank of

Patiala. On 11/5/2016 the reason for adjournment was Central Bank audit. On

13/6/2016 and 15/7/2016 the adjournments were also sought on similar reasons.

On 19/8/2017, 23/09/2016 and 24/10/2016, the adjournments were sought on the

grounds of medical reasons. ON 01/12/2016 another paper book was stated to be

under preparation. On 04/1/2017 adjournment was sought on the grounds of

conducting a bank audit. We find that on each of these dates, adjournments have

been granted liberally in good faith. However, the indulgence shown by the

Coordinate Benches and the trust in the assessee to put forward its best foot, it is

seen has been abused. It appears that the assessee is not serious in pursuing

the appeals filed relying upon the decisions of 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) in the case of

CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. and also Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223

ITR 480 (MP), both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.

3.

Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is serious in

pursing the appeals filed then it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of

this order by moving an appropriate application and by giving an undertaking that it

shall not abuse the time of the court.

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th April,2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Vikram Singh Yadav) (Diva Singh) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Dated:- 17th April,2017.

*Ranjan/Poonam(CHD) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Narendra Kumar Johari, Sikar. 2. The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-2, Sikar. 3. Dr/CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 720 & 721/JP/2013) By order

Asstt. Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →