NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, Jaipur V. ITO, Sikar

ITA 720/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2176 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM ITA NOS. 720 & 721/JP/2013 NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, PROP, OF M/S SHEKHAWATI ART IMPEX, NEAR CHURU GATE, RAMGARH SHEKHAWATI, DISTRICT-SIKAR, RAJASTHAN. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SIKAR. PAN/G!R NO.: ABJPJ 8819 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAMESH CHAND(AD J.APPLICATION REJECTED) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJ A (ADDL.CIT) DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 TH APRIL,2017 ORDER PER: DIVA SINGH. J.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE; THEY ARE BEING DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL THE COR RECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 27/02/2013 OF CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR PERTA INING TO 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEARS ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER, AT TH E TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE COUNSEL NAMEY SHRI VIKAS RAJVANSHI STATING THAT HE WAS OUT OF STATION FOR CO NDUCTING A BANK AUDIT AND TIME WAS SOUGHT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT BOTH THE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30/08/2013. THE DELAY OF 111 DAYS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE REGISTRY. THE APPEALS HAVE COME UP FOR HEARING ON ALMOST 13 OCCASIONS OVER THE YEARS AND ON MOST OF THE OCCASIONS, HAVE BEEN ADJOU RNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON 30/11/2015, 05/2 /2016, 07/4/2016, 11/5/2016, 13/06/2016 ETC., THE APPEAL HAS BEEN ADJ OURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT ON 30/11/2015 ADJO URNMENT WAS SOUGHT IN ORDER TO PREPARE A PAPER BOOK. ON 03/2/2016 THE COUNSEL W AS STATED TO BE OUT OF STATION, ON 07/4/2016 THE REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S BANK AUDIT OF STATE BANK OF 2 PATIALA. ON 11/5/2016 THE REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS CENTRAL BANK AUDIT. ON 13/6/2016 AND 15/7/2016 THE ADJOURNMENTS WERE ALSO SOUGHT ON SIMILAR REASONS. ON 19/8/2017, 23/09/2016 AND 24/10/2016, THE ADJOUR NMENTS WERE SOUGHT ON THE GROUNDS OF MEDICAL REASONS. ON 01/12/2016 ANOTHER P APER BOOK WAS STATED TO BE UNDER PREPARATION. ON 04/1/2017 ADJOURNMENT WAS SOU GHT ON THE GROUNDS OF CONDUCTING A BANK AUDIT. WE FIND THAT ON EACH OF TH ESE DATES, ADJOURNMENTS HAVE BEEN GRANTED LIBERALLY IN GOOD FAITH. HOWEVER, THE INDULGENCE SHOWN BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES AND THE TRUST IN THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORWARD ITS BEST FOOT, IT IS SEEN HAS BEEN ABUSED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AND ALSO ESTATE OF LAT E TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS SERIOUS IN PURSING THE APPEALS FILED THEN IT WOULD BE AT LIBER TY IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND BY GIVING AN UNDERTAKING THAT IT SHALL NOT ABUSE THE TIME OF THE COURT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH APRIL,2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:- 17 TH APRIL,2017. *RANJAN/POONAM(CHD) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, SIKAR . 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-2, SIKAR. 3. DR/CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT , JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 720 & 721/JP/2013) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR