PUNAM RANI,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA

Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings issued statutory notices and called for necessary details and explanations in respect of the transactions reflected in the return of income and information available on record. According to the assessment order, the assessee either failed to furnish complete details or the explanation furnished was not found satisfactory. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances and completed the assessment determining the income of the assessee at an enhanced figure.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) also granted opportunities of hearing to the 2 assessee. However, as recorded in the appellate order, the assessee did not properly substantiate the claim with supporting evidences and therefore the Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the findings recorded in the assessment order, confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing before us, the assessee moved an application seeking adjournment. The reasons stated in the application have been considered. We find that sufficient opportunities have already been granted at various stages and no reasonable cause has been shown necessitating further adjournment. The request appears to be only to delay the proceedings. It is settled law that adjournment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Accordingly, the adjournment application is rejected and the appeal is taken up for disposal after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.

On consideration of the record, we notice that the dispute involved in the present appeal requires proper examination and verification of facts and evidences at the assessment stage. Certain explanations now sought to be raised require factual verification which was either not carried out or not adequately examined. In the interest of substantial justice and to provide fair opportunity to both parties, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

However, the conduct of the assessee in seeking adjournment without sufficient cause cannot be ignored. Therefore, while restoring the matter, it is necessary to ensure diligence in the fresh proceedings.

1 Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to frame the assessment afresh de-novo after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and 3 shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to examine all issues in accordance with law and decide the matter on merits.

Considering the conduct of the assessee, we impose a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to be deposited in the Poor Patient Relief Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within 30 days from receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish the receipt of deposit before the Assessing Officer during the fresh proceedings, failing which the Assessing Officer shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

""थ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु" (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, च"ीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File