M/s Shree Jewellers, Chandigarh V. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

ITA 293/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4972 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR GULSHAN RAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGHPROXY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

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 : 09.0 5.2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING 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 APPEARE D BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO PLEASE GIVE ADJOURNMENT I N ABOVE CASE & FIX THE HEARING IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2018. WE SHALL BE THANKFUL TO YOU FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNES S. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY. 3. MR. TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADVOCATE AS PROXY COUNSEL R EQUESTED 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 C OUNSEL. 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 INFORM ATION/DOCUMENTS DESIRED FOR PREPARATION OF PAPER BOOK IN ABOVE CASES ARE AW AITED 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 INFORM ATION/DOCUMENTS DESIRED FOR PREPARATION OF PAPER BOOK IN ABOVE CASES ARE ST ILL AWAITED FROM THE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.2 ON 01.03.2018, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT ON THE FO LLOWING 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 B EEN CONDUCTED AT OUR OFFICE BY INVESTIGATION WING, PATIALA IN CONNECTION WITH O UR 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 STAT ED REASON OF FILING PAPER BOOK/AND/OR OBTAINING RECORDS. SINCE DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITIES, 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 ON WARDS 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 LA TE 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 F ILING THE DETAILS, AND ON THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN THAT HE IS READY TO ARGUE THE APP EAL ON MERITS WITH PAPER BOOK ETC., IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS OR DER 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 DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.05.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA SIN GH) 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