9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rte the assessee. The plea raised by the applicant in this regard is as under : "1. That the above mentioned appeal was filed by the appellant and was fixed for hearing before this Hon'ble Bench on 05.12.2012. 2. That the Counsel was not well since suffering from fever and therefore application praying for adjournment was filed however, the Hon'ble Bench rejected the application for adjournment on the ground of repeated adjournments on three dates i.e., 07.04.2011, 25.04,2011 and 11.07.2011. 3. That it is humbly submitted that on 07.04.2011, the Counsel was appointed and filed its power of attorney while on 25.04.2011 adjournment was by the Bench as there was no time since it was involved in other cases while on 11.07.2011 the adjournmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., the assessee had failed to produce any evidence/document in support during the assessment proceedings. The C IT(Appeals) had upheld the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, however restricted the same to the period said amounts were outstanding for. The CIT(Appeals) had further dealt with the advance made to M/s Punjab Machinery Works Pvt. Ltd. The CIT(Appeals) had allowed the relief in respect of opening balance of Rs.9,30,000/- in the said account. However, in the absence of any evidence that the advances were made for business purposes, proportionate disallowance out of interest was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) on the balance advance made to M/s Punjab Machinery Works P.Ltd. Similar addition was mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eous Application moved by the assessee. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Bhawarlal C.Bafna V ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 687 (Mad) that adjournments are not matter of right and once many adjournments are taken, the Tribunal could take note of conduct of the part y and refuse the adjournment in its discretion. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant further adjournment as the matter had been adjourned on several occasions at the request of the ld. AR for the assessee. In view of the abovesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, we find no merit in the present Miscellaneous Application moved by the assessee. 6. Further, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2012 had decided the issue on merits of the present appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
