Dileep Kumar Gupta, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

SA 04/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0201 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT AWASTHI
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. NO.04, 05 & 06/LKW/2017 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 574, 575 & 576/LKW/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 010 - 11 DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA PROP. M/S VINAYAK TRADERS 128/1069, Y BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR KANPUR V. DY. CIT - 3 KANPUR T AN /PAN : AGFPG7853A (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI BHARAT AWASTHI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 20 0 4 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 0 4 201 8 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR STAYING THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 2 . THESE STAY APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF ITAT LUCKNOW BENCH ON 14/9/2017 AND THE REAFTER THE SAME WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 8/12/2017; 15/12/2017 9/2/2018 AND 9/3/2018, BUT ON ALL THESE DATES NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THESE STAY APPLICATIONS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING ON 20/4/2018 AND ON THIS DATE A LSO NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE. 3 . THE STAY MATTERS ARE VERY URGENT MATTERS IN WHICH THERE IS ALWAYS A THREAT OF RECOVERY OR OTHER IRREPARABLE LOSS UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS ALWAYS AN ENDEAVOR ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNA L TO S.A. NO.04, 05 & 06/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 DISPOSE OF THE STAY APPLICATIONS AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. BUT IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING HIS STAY APPLICATIONS DISPOSED OF FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM, WHICH SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO URGENCY IN THESE STAY APPLI CATIONS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT THEREIN. WE, HOWEVER, CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE STAY APPLICATIONS ON MERIT AND HEARD THE REVENUE. 4 . ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE BASIS OF TH E DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/144 OF THE ACT AND APPRECIATION OF DOCUMENTS CAN ONLY BE DONE DURING THE COURSE OF REGULAR HEARING AND NOT IN THE HEARING OF STAY APPLICATIONS. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAY A PPLICATIONS AND WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE SAME. 5 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE STAY APPLICATIONS ARE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 / 0 4 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 T H APRIL , 201 8 JJ: 2004 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR