9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31st January, 2017 which would further delay the proceedings. We see no reason in these facts to interfere in the present petition. CIT(A) need not await for the deposit of tax as directed by the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 to decide the pending appeals before him for the Assessment year 2007-08., 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. This for the reason that it is not a condition precedent that the disputed amounts be deposited before the appeal can be heard and disposed of by the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that the pending appeals before the CIT(A) would not by itself in any manner fetter the rights of the Revenue to adopt such proceedings as are available to it in law, to recover its taxes in terms of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... February, 2017 at which time the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions stated that the hearing of the appeals from the Orders of the Assessing Officer for the subject Assessment years had almost been concluded before the CIT(A) with petitioners being directed by the CIT(A) to file its written submission. However, when the petitioners sought to file written submissions on 8th February, 2017, the CIT(A) refused to accept it on the ground of the pending petitions. In the above view, both the petitions were adjourned to enable the CIT(A) to conclude the hearing of the two appeals by deciding the appeal finally. We had also directed the CIT(A) to accept the written submissions sought to be filed by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring before the CIT(A). This affidavit disputes the affidavit filed on behalf of the department dated 2nd March, 2017 on the ground that it does not correctly reflect the facts which transpired before the CIT(A). In particular, the affidavit disputes the representation in the affidavit dated 2nd March, 2017 of the Revenue that the hearing of appeal is still at a preliminary stage and reiterates that it is at a conclusive stage. For the present we are not going into the correctness or otherwise of the affidavit filed on behalf of the parties for it may not be necessary for disposal of this petition. 6. In the present facts, we see no reason to entertain the present petition. This for the reason that after the impugned orders dated 28th Oc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. However, it is clarified that the CIT(A) need not await for the deposit of tax as directed by the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016 to decide the pending appeals before him for the Assessment year 2007-08., 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13. This for the reason that it is not a condition precedent that the disputed amounts be deposited before the appeal can be heard and disposed of by the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that the pending appeals before the CIT(A) would not by itself in any manner fetter the rights of the Revenue to adopt such proceedings as are available to it in law, to recover its taxes in terms of the impugned orders dated 28th October, 2016. 9. Accordingly, both petitions are dismissed. No order as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
