M/s Anshul Goyal Land & Housing Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 157/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5124 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHANT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1 57/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S ANSHUL GOYAL LAND & VS THE DCIT, HOUSING LTD., CIRCLE VII, VILLAGE GILL, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AAFCA7899D (A PPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SIDDHANT RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDER KANTA, ADDL.C IT DATE OF HEARING : 06.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.03.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2012 CIT(A)-II LUDHIANA PERTAININ G TO 200809 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE MOVED BY THE LD. AR. IN SUPPORT OF THE APP LICATION A PERSON MR SIDDHANT WAS PRESENT. HE WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHY TIME WAS RE QUIRED. THE PERSON PRESENT STATED THAT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AS SUCH UNAWARE ABOUT THE C ONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION MOVED. THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED STATING THAT THE COU NSEL WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THIS FACT WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE PERSON PRESENT WHO REPORTED T HAT HE WAS UNAWARE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASS ESSEE HAS TREATED THE SEEKING OF ADJOURNMENT AND FIXING OF APPEAL AS A VERY CASUAL E XERCISE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE INFACT MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. THE SAID CONCLUSION IS BORNE OUT FROM THE FACTS ON RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 21/03/2012, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 17/05/2012 ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-P ROSECUTION. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N PRAYING FOR A RECALL OF THE SAID ORDER. THE COORDINATE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 28/11/ 2017 IN MA 26/CHD /2017 WAS PLEASED TO RECALL THE ORDER AND DIRECT THE FIXATION OF THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERITS ON 09/01/2018. ON THE SAID DATE DESPITE THE APPEAL HAV ING BEEN FILED ON 21/03/2012 THE LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL AND MOVED AN ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION STATING THAT ITA 157/CHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COMPILED. IN SUPPORT O F THE SAID APPLICATION PROXY COUNSEL MR S YADAV, CA WAS PRESENT. ACCEPTING THE REQUEST IN GOOD FAITH, TIME WAS GRANTED AND THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 6 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2018. AS A RESULT OF THIS ORDER, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.02.2018. THE DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON THE SAID DATE I.E. 06.02.2018. ON THE SAID DATE ALSO AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NOTED, SOME OFFICE EMPLOYEE WAS PRESENT IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME WHO WAS UNAWARE ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION. FURTHER NO PAPER BOOK/DOCUMENTS ETC. TILL DATE HAVE BEEN FILED EITHER ON THE SAID DATE OR PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT ON EACH OF THE DATES, THE COUNSEL HAS NOT CARED TO BE PRESENT AND HAS EITHER SENT PROXY COUNSEL OR AN EMPLOYEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED AS NO ATTEMPTS DESPITE HAVING FILED THE APPEAL IN 2 012 HAVE BEEN MADE TO PLACE ANY DOCUMENTS/PAPER-BOOK ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE GR OUNDS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GRANT OF ANY FURTHER TIME WOULD BE A WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE RELYING UPON 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. 3. BEFORE PARTING, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN THE EVE NTUALITY THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED THEN IT MAY PRAY FOR A RE CALL OF THIS ORDER BY FILING AN UNDERTAKING TO STATE THAT ADJOURNMENT SHALL NOT BE FRIVOLOUSLY SOUGHT ALONGWITH RELEVANT PAPER BOOKS ETC NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATING THE ISSU ES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH,2018. SD/- SD/- ( DR.B.R.KUMAR) (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.