Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Smt. Meena Baldua, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(5), Jaipur on 25 February, 2019
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
S.A. No. 16/JP/2019
(Arising out of ITA No. 872/JP/2018)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2008-09
Meena Baldua, cuke I.T.O.
304, Upasna Residency, C-25, Vs. Ward 5(5),
Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Jaipur.
Collectrate circle, Bani Park,
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPB 0137 G
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Tantiwala (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT).
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25/02/2019
mn~?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 25/02/2019
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. By way of this Stay petition, the assessee is seeking stay against the total demand of Rs. 13,09,860/-.
2. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on account of deposits made in the bank account. However, the assessment was reopened on the reasons that the assessee has made credit card payments and therefore, to the extent of the 2 S.A. No. 16/JP/2019 Meena Baldua Vs. ITO payment, the income assessable to tax was considered as escaped assessment. The ld AR has thus contended that the assessee has good prima facie case on merits. He has prayed that the recovery of the demand may be stayed till disposal of the appeal.
3. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has vehemently opposed to the prayer and submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has not even made any part payment of the demand.
4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee was first listed for hearing on 20/09/2018 but the hearing was adjourned at the request of the assessee. Thereafter the appeal was again listed for hearing on 15/11/2018 and 15/01/2019 and on both the occasions, the assessee sought adjournment, therefore, the delay in hearing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee. On the one hand, the assessee is seeking adjournment after adjournment of hearing of the appeal and on the other hand, the assessee has now filed this stay application. The assessee has not produced any material before us to show any change in the circumstances after filing of appeal for seeking this stay against the recovery of the demand. Accordingly, in view of the facts and 3 S.A. No. 16/JP/2019 Meena Baldua Vs. ITO circumstances of the case when the assessee is responsible for delay in hearing and disposal of the appeal, we decline to grant stay against the demand. However, the hearing of the appeal is prepone from 25/3/2019 to 05/3/2019 at the request of the ld AR of the assessee. The date of hearing as advanced by us has been announced in the open court and has been noted down by both the parties, therefore, no separate notice shall be issued in this regard. The assessee is directed not to take any further adjournment of hearing.
5. In the result, the stay application is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th February, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO)
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 25th February, 2019.
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Meena Baldua, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward 5(5), Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (S.A. 16/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar