Pureview Technologies Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-4(2), Baroda

ITA 2727/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7885 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2727/AHD/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. PUREVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 11, KRISHNA KUTIR, NEAR SURYA PALACE, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA 390005 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), BARODA ././ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCP2558C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # / APPELLANT BY : NONE (ADJ. LETTER DECLINED) !' $# / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D.R. % &'($) DATE OF HEARING 05/07/2018 *+, $) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/07/2018 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, BAROD A (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 12.06.2014 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UND ER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 20 07-08. ITA NO. 2727/AHD/14 [M/S. PUREVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 - 2. IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.10,11,700/- U NDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY WAY OF ITS GROUNDS OF APPEA L. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE AP PEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 04.07.2018 WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VES MUKUND & ROHIT, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, VADODARA SEEKING ADJO URNMENT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THA T THE MATTER WAS FIRST LISTED ON 10.08.2017 WHERE NO-ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARI NG ON 06.02.2018. THE ASSESSEE MOVED APPLICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT CITING UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE MATTER WAS A DJOURNED. THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY ON 05. 07.2018. HOWEVER, THE DITTO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION CITING U NAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES HAS BEEN ONCE AGAIN WRITTEN IN THE AD JOURNMENT LETTER. CLEARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNME NT CASUALLY IN THE PAST ON VAGUE PREMISES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIBER ALLY GRANTED THE ADJOURNMENT. EVEN TODAY, WE ARE DISTRESSED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT CITING THE SAME REA SON OF VAGUE AND OBSCURE NATURE. 4. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO CLAIM ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PERSI STENTLY FAILED IN ATTENDING THE PROCEEDINGS AND HAS DEMONSTRATED A LARMING SHOW OF FLIPPANCY AND NONCHALANCE. BEMUSING JUSTIFICATI ON ADVANCED FOR ADJOURNMENT CITING OF UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES IS OSTENSIBLY INSIPID AND AN EMPTY FORMALITY. THE CASE WAS LISTE D FIRST ON BOARD FOR HEARING BEING AN OLD MATTER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, FREQUENT ADJOURNMENTS AND REFIXING OF A CASE TIME AND AGAIN LEAD TO ITA NO. 2727/AHD/14 [M/S. PUREVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 - UNNECESSARY CLOGGING OF APPELLATE MACHINERY AND PUT PRESSURE ON AVAILABLE RESOURCES. SECONDLY, REPEATED ADJOURNMEN TS LEADS TO CONSIDERABLE LAPSE OF TIME WHICH HAS A SERIOUS IMPA CT ON INQUIRY OR COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE, IF FOUND NECESSARY AT TH E TIME OF HEARING. REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS FRUSTRATE PROPER IN VESTIGATION ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED AT A BELATED STAGE, IF SO REQUI RED. THE INORDINATE DELAY CAUSED OWING TO SUCH ADJOURNMENTS AT TIMES RESULTS IN TOTAL LOSS OF EVIDENCE. THE PARTIES MUS T REFRAIN TO ASSUME THAT THE ADJOURNMENTS CAN BE GRANTED ENDLESS LY WITHOUT SHOWING REASONABLE CAUSE. NO REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE INSTANT CASE. HENCE, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT EXPEDIENT TO GRANT FURTHER LATITUDE TO THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS ADJO URNMENT. THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DECLINED AND THE MATTER IS PROCEEDED EX PARTE . 5. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DISMISSI NG THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS DELETION OF PENALTY ON ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RS.29,0 9,500/- AND ADDITION OF RS.96,110/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THE AO WAS CONSTRAINT TO PASS BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT UNDER S.144 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO AVAIL NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN THE BONA FIDES OF ITS AFFAIRS. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE BONAFIDES OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPL ICATION MONEY AND UNSECURED LOAN IN QUESTION. THE AO ACCORDINGLY WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO IMPOSE PENALTY OF RS.10,11,70 0/- ( WORKED ITA NO. 2727/AHD/14 [M/S. PUREVIEW TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 - OUT AT MINIMUM RATE) UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON CONCEALMENT DETECTED. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THE ARGUMENTS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE BEREFT OF ANY FORCE. A PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE ACTION O F THE CIT(A) IS ON SOUND REASONING. WE DO NOT SEEK TO REPEAT THE R EASONING BUT HOWEVER ENDORSE THE SAME IN TOTO. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED EX PARTE . SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/07/2018 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- ..' / REVENUE 2.' / ASSESSEE 0. ) % 1) / CONCERNED CIT 4. % 1)- / CIT (A) 4.5'67!8)8& 9 9 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD :.7;<= / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 9 / 9 THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06/07/ 2018