M/S SHREE JEWELLERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/CHANDI/2017Status: PendingITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2012-132 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 rejected the assessee's request for an adjournment, concluding that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the appeal due to persistent delays in filing required documents. The Tribunal cited previous orders and case law to support its decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was listed for hearing multiple times. On each occasion, the assessee sought adjournments, primarily citing delays in obtaining necessary documents and preparing the paper book. The Tribunal noted a pattern of repeated adjournments despite sufficient opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee has shown sufficient cause for repeated adjournments to justify further postponement of the hearing. Whether the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

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, DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

Before: MS. DIVA SINGH & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate (Proxy Counsel)
For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT-DR
Hearing: 07.05.2018Pronounced: 09.05.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 293/CHD/2017 Assessment year: 2012-13 Shree Jewellers, Vs. The Pr.CIT-1, SCO-5, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. PAN No. : AAXFS8977P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate (Proxy Counsel) Respondent by : Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT-DR

Date of hearing : 07.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2018

ORDER PER DIVA SINGH

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.12.2016 of Pr.CIT-1 Chandigarh pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year. 2. However, at the time of hearing, ah adjournment application was placed on record pleading for time on the following ground : SUBJECT: Adjournment in case of Shree Jewellers Appeal no 293/2017 FOR HEARING ON 7-5-2018. Hon'ble Member, With reference to above we submit that the details desired for preparation of paper book are awaited from the counsel who appeared before lower authorities. We request your Honour to please give adjournment in above case & fix the hearing in the month of June 2018. We shall be thankful to you for this act of kindness. Thanking you Yours faithfully. 3. Mr. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate as Proxy Counsel requested for time. However, considering the fact that right from the filing of the appeal on 13.02.2017 on each of the dates, the appeal came up for hearing namely 11.04.2017, 24.10.2017, 08.02.2017 and 01.03.2018 it was adjourned on the request of the counsel. This is apart from the fact that on two specific occasions i.e. on 08.06.2017 and 22.06.2017, it was adjourned as the Bench was not functional. It is further seen that adjournment on 11.04.2017 was sought

ITA 293/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 2

on the following grounds : “With reference to above, we submit that the information/documents desired for preparation of Paper Book in above cases are awaited from the counsel who appeared before lower authorities.” 3.1 On 24.10.2017 and 08.02.2017, it was yet again sought on the following ground : “With reference to above, we submit that the information/documents desired for preparation of Paper Book in above cases are still awaited from the counsel who appeared before lower authorities. 3.2 On 01.03.2018, adjournment was sought on the following ground : With reference to above we submit that we could not prepare the Paper Book due to search under Section 132 of Income Tax Act has been conducted at our office by Investigation Wing, Patiala in connection with our client.” 3.3. The record shows that the Co-ordinate Benches over a period of time have been repeatedly giving time to the assessee for the stated reason of filing Paper Book/and/or obtaining records. Since despite sufficient opportunities, the same have not been made available to the ld. AR, it can be safely presumed that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. In these circumstances, the adjournment request moved on identical reasons on 07.05.2018 as on 11.04.2017 onwards was rejected as it appears that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed as the details have still not been made available to the assessee. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc. 4. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the details, and on the undertaking given that he is ready to argue the appeal on merits with Paper Book etc., it would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order by making an appropriate prayer. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09.05.2018.

Sd/- Sd/-

(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ‘Poonam’ Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR Asstt. Registrar ITAT Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →