9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal in ITA No. 2351/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: "1. The ld. CIT, Haldwani erred on facts and in law in rejecting the adjournment application due to illness of the advocate and thereby passing an ex-parte order u/s 263 of I.T. Act, inspite of the fact, that there was a reasonable cause. 2. That on 25.02.2015, the Associate Vice President of Appellant Bank attended the proceedings at Haldwani Office. However Ld. CIT was not at Haldwani on that date and it was explained that no officer has been authorized for this proceeding. Hence request for adjournment with medical reason was submitted on DAK. Accordingly, the Order passed u/s 263 is not a valid order.\ WITHOUT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. The initiation of proceeding u/s 263 of I.T. Act and order u/s 263 of I. T. Act is contrary to the facts, law, principle of natural justice and without providing proper opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon by him." 4. The main grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT by rejecting the application for adjournment due to illness of the counsel for the assessee. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed electronically the return of income on 30.09.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 61,24,18,940/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. The AO framed the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions the ld. CIT DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT and further submitted that the ld. Counsel for the assessee had been discharged from the Hospital on 08.02.2015 and there was nothing on record to suggest that he was not available for consultation even by 25.02.2015. Therefore, the request for adjournment was rightly rejected by the ld. CIT and the case was decided on merit. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. Counsel for the assessee was ill and could not represent the case of the assessee on 25.02.2015 when the ld. CIT asked the assessee to furnish its submission vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
