M/s. Ram Enterprise, Ahmedabad V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Ahmedabad

MA 12/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6384 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DIPAK SONI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO: 12/AHD/2017 (IN IT(SS)A NO. 32/AHD/2008) (BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1985 TO 31/03/1995) M/S. RAM ENTERPRISE 23/24, SABANDH TWINS BEHIND GURUDWARA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD V/S THE D.C.I.T CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAEFR0468D APPELLANT BY : SHRI DIPAK SONI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAURABH SINGH, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 20 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 -04-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. WITH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE P RAYS FOR THE RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A 32/AHD/2008 DATED 07.072016. M.A. NO. 12/ AHD/2017 (IN IT(SS)A N O. 32/AHD/2008 . B.P. 01-4-19 85 TO 31-03-1995 2 2. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDS THAT IT IS INTERESTE D IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAV E DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH INCLUDED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CON TENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION QUA THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELE VANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIRST POSTED FOR HEARING ON 03. 04.2008 AND WAS ADJOURNED TO 02.06.2010. ON 02.06.2010, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJO URNMENT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING ADJOURNMENT F ROM 03.08.2010, 27.09.2010, 15.03.2011, 26.05.2011, 05.10.2011, 24.11.2011, 06. 02.2012, 22.05.2012, 25.07.2012, 24.09.2012 AND 28.11.2013. ON 29.01.20 13, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD BUT ON 18.03.2013, THE BENCH NEEDED SOME CLARIFICAT ION. ON 18.11.2013, DUE TO THE TRANSFER OF THE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THE APPEAL W AS DE PART HEARD AND RELEASED. 3. ONCE AGAIN, THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 2 0.01.2014 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.02.2014 . THEREAFTER, WHENEVER THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK ADJOURNMENT. 4. ON THIS DAY I.E. 05.07.2016, ONCE AGAIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FROM DEEPAK SONI & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FILED AN APPLICATI ON REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT. 5. WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED FACTUAL MATRIX, WE CAN S AY THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SERIOUSLY WANT TO CONTEST HIS APPEAL. EIGHT YEA RS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF FIRST HEARING. M.A. NO. 12/ AHD/2017 (IN IT(SS)A N O. 32/AHD/2008 . B.P. 01-4-19 85 TO 31-03-1995 3 6. LOOKING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIO NED ELSEWHERE, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT O F PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR ENTERTAINING THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23 - 04- 20 18 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 23/04/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD