9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and jurisdictional orders. The argument that interim orders were passed without the Bench being convinced of the reasons and necessity of summoning the record, is to say the least, unwarranted. These orders on different dates by different Benches cannot be said to have been passed without reason or without application of mind. The argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative are devoid of merit. In view of the above discussions, we direct the Revenue to comply with the interim orders of this Bench. Adjournment is once again granted at the request of the earned Departmental representative as last opportunity. - I. T. A. Nos. 1443, 1444, 1734 and 1735/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - J. Sudhakar Reddy (Accountant Member) And Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Salil Kapoor, Advocate For the Respondent : Sunil Chandra Sharma, Departmental Representative ORDER J. Sudhakar Reddy (Accountant Member) 1. When the case came up for hearing, the learned Departmental representative submitted that the Bench had passed interim orders on 26 January, 2016 and February 11, 2016, without giving him adequate opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the Bench on the earlier occasions had passed the interim orders after hearing both the parties and it was not right on the part of the learned Departmental representative to contend otherwise. He argued that the record has to be produced as per the orders of the Bench and just because the assessee has a right under the Right to Information Act, the Revenue cannot refuse to produce the record before the Bench. He pointed out that examinations of the record is essential to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction of this case. He argued that the Department should comply with the earlier orders of the Bench. 3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the record, we hold as follows. 3.1. The appeal was filed on March 11, 2014. Case has come up for hearing on October 28, 2014, November 18, 2014, December 22, 2014, February 2, 2015 and March 30, 2015. It was adjourned for various reasons. 3.2. The assessee filed an additional ground in question on March 19, 2015. It reads as follows : 22. That the assessment order passed on June 25, 2012 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation as the ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partmental representative is directed to convey the Assessing Officer to provide copies of the order-sheets of assessment file/record for the assessment year 2009- 10. Hearing is adjourned to October 6, 2015. (S./-) (Sd/-) (I. Rama Rao) (C. M. Garg) AM JM 3.6. Again, the case was adjourned on October 6, 2015, November 24, 2015. When the case came up for hearing on June 4, 2016, the Bench ordered as follows : Order dated January 4, 2016 Mr. Sunil Sharma, Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative states that the copy of the additional ground sought to be raised is not available with him and seeks time to go through the same. Mr. S. Kapur, advocate present. Adjourned to January 13, 2016, a date convenient to both the parties. Read out in the Tribunal. (S./-) (Sd/-) (O. P. Kant) (Diva Singh) AM JM 3.7. Again, the case was adjourned on January 13, 2016. When the case came up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Range 3. Copy of this order-sheet may be provided to both parties. (Sd./-) (Sd/-) (Suchitra Kamble) (S. V. Mehrotra) AM JM 3.9. When the case came up for hearing on March 15, 2016, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative had sought an adjournment. The adjournment application reads as follows : The above matter is fixed for hearing on March 15, 2016. The applicant most respectfully submits : As per the directions of the Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench dated February 11, 2016, copy of order under section 127 was required to be produced before the Hon ble Bench. However, the latest position is that the request from the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6, New Delhi to the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax I to have the concerned order located and provided-is yet to be complied or responded to some more time is required as it relates to locating very old records after which the restructuring and reorganisation of the Department has occurred twice. 3.10. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder under section 127 in the case of M/s. Consulting Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 2009-10 may please be provided to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(2), New Delhi for submission before the Hon ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for survival of appeal as the said order may have been passed by the erst while Commissioner of Income-tax 1, New Delhi. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has given final opportunity in the matter and date of hearing is March 15, 2016. 3.11. A perusal of the letter dated February 24, 2016 of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 6, New Delhi extracted above points out, that the said jurisdictional order under section 127 of the Act could not be traced till date. 3.12. The case was adjourned to May 3, 2015 with a direction by the Bench to the learned Departmental representative to comply with the earlier order of the Bench : Order dated March 15, 2016 At the request of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative hearing adjourned to May 3, 2016 the learned Commissioner of Income-tax-Departmental representative directed to comply with the Hon ble Bench order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not appreciated. It also gives us a feeling that there is no such order passed under section 127 of the Act giving jurisdiction to the concerned Assessing Officer. 4.1. We do not see any merit in the argument of the learned Departmental representative that the assessee could approach the Revenue under the Right to Information Act and hence the required orders on record need not be produced. Any document or record can be requisitioned by the Bench, if it is of the opinion that if the same is required for the disposal of the appeal. The assessee also submits that his application under the Right to Information Act was rejected by the Revenue. Thus, in our view the Bench, only on being convinced of the necessity of examining these records called for the said records and jurisdictional orders. The argument that interim orders were passed without the Bench being convinced of the reasons and necessity of summoning the record, is to say the least, unwarranted. These orders on different dates by different Benches cannot be said to have been passed without reason or without application of mind. 4.2. The argument of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax- Departmental representative ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
