9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1750 - AT - Income TaxNon-representation on the date of hearing - HELD THAT - From the cumulative reading of the order sheets in the appeals it is seen that barring few occasions when the hearing was adjourned for want of time and twice on the request of the department the appeals have largely been adjourned on the request of the assessee. Accordingly in the afore-said peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals.The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order Multi Plan India (P) Ltd 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Before parting it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing then the assessee if so advised would be at liberty to pray for a recall of this order and decisions on merits. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court. Appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Correctness of orders passed by the AO under section 143(3)/14C in various assessment years. 2. Adjournment sought by the assessee's counsel. 3. Dismissal of the appeals due to lack of seriousness in pursuing them. Issue 1: Correctness of AO's Orders The judgment pertains to the correctness of orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3)/14C in the assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2007-08. The appellant challenged the orders dated 21.09.2010, 31.10.2011, and 24.09.2012. The appeal was dismissed as the assessee was perceived not to be serious in pursuing the appeals. The dismissal was based on the Tribunal's observation that most adjournments were at the request of the assessee, indicating a lack of commitment. The Tribunal referred to precedents like Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd. and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT to support the decision. Issue 2: Adjournment Request During the hearing, an adjournment petition was submitted by the appellant's counsel citing unavailability. The Counsel was asked to provide reasons for the adjournment, but no substantial explanation was given despite a query. The Department objected to the adjournment, stating they were prepared for the hearing. The Tribunal noted that most adjournments were requested by the assessee, with few exceptions. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal inferred that the appellant was not serious about pursuing the appeals, leading to their dismissal. Issue 3: Dismissal of Appeals Based on the pattern of adjournments and the lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. However, it allowed the appellant to seek a recall of the order if they could demonstrate a reasonable cause for non-representation on the hearing date. The dismissal was pronounced in open court, and the appellant was given the option to approach for a review if advised and justified. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the correctness of the AO's orders, the adjournment sought by the appellant's counsel, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeals due to perceived lack of seriousness in pursuing them. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of commitment and provided the appellant with an opportunity to request a review if valid reasons for non-representation could be shown.
|
