M/S Supreme Constructions v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.24377 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.04.2013 M/s Supreme Constructions .....Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III and another .....Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:-Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.4457 of 2013 Application is allowed and the written statement filed on behalfof the respondents is taken on record. C.W.P. No.24377 of 2012 The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of Income Tax Act,1961 on 14.8.2012 in a revision filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed its return on 30.03.2010 declaring loss ofRs.3,54,307/-. The return filed by the petitioner was selected for scrutinyand notice was issued to the petitioner for 22.09.2010. Thereafter, noticesalong with questionnaires were served on 15.06.2011, 19.08.2011,09.09.2011, 18.10.2011, 17.11.2011 and lastly on 12.12.2011. Since neitherthe assessee nor his counsel appeared during the course of assessmentbefore the assessing authority, therefore an order of assessment was passed by the Income Tax Officer on 13.12.2011. Even the appeal was not filedagainst the said order. A revision was filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Acton 7.5.2012. It is the said revision, which has been dismissed by theCommissioner of Income Tax by detailed order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued thatcounsel for the petitioner could not attend the proceedings, as his nephewwas not well, therefore, the petitioner be given another chance to present itscause before the Income Tax Officer. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. The petitionerhas not put in appearance for over almost six months in spite of the fact thatsix notices were sent to the petitioner. The illness in the family is not aground so as not to put appearance before the Income Tax Officer, who isduty bound to finalise the assessment in a time bound manner. Havingfailed to appear before the Income Tax Officer during the assessmentproceedings and the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax has takeninto consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, we do not findthat the petitioner is entitled to another chance at this stage for production ofdocuments so as to re-open the assessment proceedings. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE April 02, 2013renu/Vimal ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE