Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Pureview Technologies Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs The Income Tax Officer,Ward-4(2),, ... on 6 July, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'SMC' अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2727/Ahd/2014 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/s. Pureview बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer, Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward - 4(2), Baroda 11, Krishna Kutir, Near Surya Palace, Sayajigunj, Baroda 390005 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AADCP2558C (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. (!"यथ / Respondent) अपीलाथ ओर से /Appellant by : None (Adj. letter declined) !"यथ क$ ओर से / Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R. Respondent by :
सन ु वाई क$ तार ख / Date of 05/07/2018 Hearing घोषणा क$ तार ख /Date of 06/07/2018 Pronouncement आदे श/O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-III, Baroda ('CIT(A)' in short), dated 12.06.2014 arising in the assessment order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2007-08.
I T A N o . 2 7 2 7 / Ah d / 1 4 [ M / s . P u r e v i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 2 -
2. In the captioned appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.10,11,700/- under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of its grounds of appeal.
3. When the matter was called for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. An application for adjournment dated 04.07.2018 was placed on behalf of the authorized representatives Mukund & Rohit, Chartered Accountants, Vadodara seeking adjournment in the present appeal. It is seen from the record that the matter was first listed on 10.08.2017 where no-one was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter was again fixed for hearing on 06.02.2018. The assessee moved application for adjournment citing unavoidable circumstances. The matter was adjourned. The appeal was again fixed for hearing today on 05.07.2018. However, the ditto adjournment application citing unavoidable circumstances has been once again written in the adjournment letter. Clearly, the assessee has sought adjournment casually in the past on vague premises. The Tribunal has liberally granted the adjournment. Even today, we are distressed to note that the assessee has sought adjournment citing the same reason of vague and obscure nature.
4. Needless to say, the assessee does not have any indefeasible right to claim adjournment. The assessee has persistently failed in attending the proceedings and has demonstrated alarming show of flippancy and nonchalance. Bemusing justification advanced for adjournment citing of unavoidable circumstances is ostensibly insipid and an empty formality. The case was listed first on board for hearing being an old matter. Needless to say, frequent adjournments and refixing of a case time and again lead to I T A N o . 2 7 2 7 / Ah d / 1 4 [ M / s . P u r e v i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 3 -
unnecessary clogging of appellate machinery and put pressure on available resources. Secondly, repeated adjournments leads to considerable lapse of time which has a serious impact on inquiry or collection of evidence, if found necessary at the time of hearing. Repeated adjournments frustrate proper investigation on the issues involved at a belated stage, if so required. The inordinate delay caused owing to such adjournments at times results in total loss of evidence. The parties must refrain to assume that the adjournments can be granted endlessly without showing reasonable cause. No reasonable cause has been shown in the instant case. Hence, we do not consider it expedient to grant further latitude to the assessee towards adjournment. The adjournment request moved on behalf of the assessee is thus declined and the matter is proceeded ex parte.
5. The learned DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities.
6. We have perused the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee towards deletion of penalty on additions towards unexplained share application money Rs.29,09,500/- and addition of Rs.96,110/- towards unexplained cash credit. In this regard, we note that the AO was constraint to pass best judgment assessment under s.144 of the Act as the assessee failed to avail numerous opportunities provided to explain the bonafides of its affairs. In the appellate proceedings also, the assessee failed to substantiate the bonafides of receipt of share application money and unsecured loan in question. The AO accordingly was left with no option but to impose penalty of Rs.10,11,700/- ( worked I T A N o . 2 7 2 7 / Ah d / 1 4 [ M / s . P u r e v i e w T e c h n o l o g i e s Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08 - 4 -
out at minimum rate) under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on concealment detected. The CIT(A) has also found the arguments moved on behalf of the assessee to be bereft of any force. A perusal of the penalty order of the CIT(A) shows that the action of the CIT(A) is on sound reasoning. We do not seek to repeat the reasoning but however endorse the same in toto.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 06/07/2018
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 06/07/2018
True Copy
S. K. SINHA
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु1त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु1त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. 5वभागीय !8त8न ध, आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद /
DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड< फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।