Case Law Details
in this case, there is a very high demand i.e. more than 150 crores which is still outstanding to be payable by the assessee and the stay of demand was granted by the tribunal on the condition that the assessee will not seek adjournment except on genuine and bonafide reasons.
The assessee has now come up with the additional grounds in relation to arithmetical inaccuracy in the workings provided in the DRP order which grounds are already covered by ground No. 1 and ground 12 to 14 which were already filed before the tribunal in the appeal memo as also admitted by the assessee and the assessee has requested for admission of the these additional grounds vide letter dated 2302-2017.
The assessee counsel has insisted on granting adjournment for today’s hearing despite knowingly well that this a direct flouting of the terms of stay of demand originally granted by the tribunal. This was brought to the notice of learned counsel for the assessee but he still insisted on grant of adjournment for today’s hearing.
The ld. CIT-D.R. categorically brought to our notice that these additional grounds can be argued today itself as they are covered by the existing grounds and does not have any significant bearing on the outcome of the appeal as they are only referring to some arithmetical inaccuracy in the order of the DRP.
However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee insisted for the adjournment despite being brought to his notice about consequences of seeking adjournment.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
