Case Law Details
Brief of the Case
Bombay High Court held In the case of Zuari Global Ltd. vs. Principal CIT that it is not disputed that the matter was posted on 7.7.2015. It is also not disputed that prior to such date the appellant had only sought two adjournments. On account of some unavoidable reasons of the death in the family of the counsel of the appellant, the concerned counsel was unable to represent the appellant on the relevant date. The fact that there was a death in the family of the counsel of the appellant is not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. In such circumstances, considering that the appellant are not unnecessarily delaying the matter and as on the relevant date there was justifiable reason which prevented the counsel for the appellant to remain present before the Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal was not justified to refuse an adjournment.
Facts of the Case
For the Assessment year 2007-2008, the assessee had filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs.12.77 Crores. The same was accepted by issuing intimation under Section 143(1). On 6th February, 2013 the impugned notice was issued seeking to reopen the Assessment. On 15th March, 2013 itself, the assessee filed its revised return of income and sought reasons recorded in support of the impugned notice. The revenue did not furnish the reasons recorded, in spite of the Assessee’s repeated communications such as letters dated 15th March, 2013 and 12th September, 2013 seeking the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice. However, the Assessing Officer furnished the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice to the Petitioner only on 19th March, 2015.
On 25th March, 2015 the Petitioner filed its objections to the reasons recorded as communicated for issuing the impugned notice dated 6th February, 2013.The Assessing Officer without disposing of the Petitioner’s objections passed a draft Assessment order dated 30th March, 2015.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Refusing to grant adjournment ignoring the circumstantial facts and situation by the court is totally against the principle of natural justice. Further the adjournments should have been granted if defense is not objecting the request of the either party. It is a good decision of the hon’ble court.