2016 (8) TMI 1397 - HC - Income Tax

Clubbing of matters - Held that - We are unable to understand why should an Advocate be briefed when he is not available to appear, particularly when it was made clear on the 19 August 2016 that under no circumstances would these clubbed matters be adjourned bearing in mind that they relate to Assessment Year 1961-62 onwards. Needless to state that if the Advocate would have been told about the circumstances leading to the matters being fixed on 22 August 2016, he would in all likelihood not have accepted the brief. Be that as it may, we refused to grant any further adjournment and directed both of them to proceed with the hearing of their respective briefs. However, both of them expressed their inability to make submissions in support of either the References, and/or the Appeals and/or the Petition. Thereafter, Mr. Chandnani learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicants in the References, sought to place on record written submissions. However, we refused to take the same on record, as the copy of the same has not been forwarded to the Respondent Revenue. Taking these submissions would entail adjourning the hearing of the References/Appeals/Petition, as the Respondent Revenue would need to respond to the written submissions filed by the Applicant Assessee particularly when both Advocates refuse to make oral submissions. Thus, in effect seeking adjournment indirectly, which we had already declined to grant. The Applicants in the References, at whose instance the References are made, are unable to make any submissions in support of the References, we return the References unanswered. However, the questions of law, as framed therein are left open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in Wealth Tax References from 1991 onwards.
2. Clubbing of matters for hearing.
3. Stay of proceedings based on Supreme Court order.
4. Adjournments sought by counsels.
5. Refusal to grant further adjournment.
6. Inability of counsels to make submissions.
7. Refusal to accept written submissions.
8. Return of References and dismissal of writ petition and appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the delay in Wealth Tax References dating back to 1991. The Assessments began with the Assessment Year 1961-62 and extended up to the Appeal for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The court noted the prolonged pendency of these matters.
2. All related matters were clubbed for hearing to expedite the process. However, continuous adjournments were sought whenever the matters were called out, primarily based on the statement that the proceedings had been stayed by the Supreme Court since 1973.
3. The court scrutinized the Supreme Court order of 1973 and found that the stay pertained to proceedings under the Gold Control Act, not the Wealth Tax References. Consequently, the court was disinclined to further adjourn the hearing for the References from 1991-1992.
4. Despite multiple adjournments requested by the counsels to gather information on the Supreme Court order's impact, the court refused to grant additional time, emphasizing the significance of the matter's age and the need to proceed with the hearing.
5. When the counsels expressed their inability to make submissions during the hearing, the court declined to accept written submissions as they had not been shared with the Respondent Revenue. The court viewed this as an indirect attempt to seek an adjournment, which had already been denied.
6. Due to the Applicants' inability to present submissions, the court decided to return the References unanswered, leaving the questions of law open for future consideration. Additionally, the writ petition and appeals filed by the Applicants were dismissed for non-prosecution, highlighting the importance of actively participating in legal proceedings to avoid such outcomes.