Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
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.
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.
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.
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