9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Stay of set-aside assessment proceedings for asst. yr. 1993-94 and early hearing of the appeal. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved the applicant seeking a stay of set-aside assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1993-94 and requesting an early hearing of the appeal. The original assessment under section 143(3) was completed by the Assessing Officer, and the assessee appealed certain additions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that further examination was necessary for the deduction claimed under section 80HHC(4A) and that the Assessing Officer did not provide reasons for not considering the claim regarding depreciation. The CIT(A) set aside the entire assessment with a direction for a de novo assessment, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal challenging the setting aside of the assessment. The assessee also contested the legality of the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties, where the assessee's counsel argued against setting aside the assessment, highlighting the audited nature of the company's accounts and minimal previous additions. The Departmental Representative opposed the petition, stating that the Tribunal lacked the power to stay proceedings. The Tribunal examined relevant legal authorities cited by the parties, including a Supreme Court decision and High Court judgments, acknowledging the Tribunal's inherent power to stay assessment proceedings in suitable cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for a stay, considering the absence of pending demands and the inconvenience of facing fresh assessment proceedings not warranting a stay. This judgment addressed the issue of whether the Tribunal had the authority to stay assessment proceedings and the request for an early hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both the assessee's counsel and the Departmental Representative. The assessee's counsel argued against setting aside the assessment, emphasizing the company's audited accounts and minimal past additions. The Departmental Representative opposed the petition, asserting the Tribunal lacked the power to stay proceedings. The Tribunal examined legal authorities cited by the parties, including a Supreme Court decision and High Court judgments, affirming the Tribunal's inherent power to stay assessment proceedings in appropriate cases. Despite acknowledging this power, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's application for a stay, citing the absence of pending demands and the inconvenience of facing fresh assessment proceedings as insufficient grounds for a stay.
|
