TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 982
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be conducted in relation to raising of share capital at premium to the extent of Rs. 21,00,000,00/- by the assessee-company. The assessment year involved is 2010-11, pertaining to the previous year 2009-10. At that point of time, the assessment was done in the name of Arihant Tradecomm Pvt. Ltd., which company merged with Aim Fincom Pvt. Ltd., with effect from 1st April, 2013 and it is this company who are the appellant before us. In their return, for the above referred previous year, the assessee had declared loss of Rs. 4,314/-. The assessment order was made accordingly. There was re-assessment proceeding triggered by a communication of the assessee informing the Assessing Officer that miscellaneous income of Rs. 24,000/- in the relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present appeal, Mr.Dasgupta, learned Advocate, appearing for the assessee sought to raise an additional point as regards the rejection of an adjournment prayer of the assessee. 3. Hearing of the proceeding under section 263 was notified by a letter dated 28th November, 2013 to the assessee (Annexure-C to the stay petition) fixing 10th December, 2013 as the date of hearing. There was prayer for adjournment of hearing on that date on the ground of passing away of father of the senior authorised representative of the assessee on 9th December, 2013. But there is no material to show that such prayer for adjournment was made on 10th December, 2013 or on any date prior thereto. As it appears from the despatch slip, photocopy of which is refl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case on re-enquiry in a particular manner. On this point, he has referred to section 119 of the Act. He has argued, referring to that provision, that since the Board itself does not have the jurisdiction to pass an order of that nature, it is to be inferred that the Commissioner also lacked jurisdiction to direct the enquiry as contained in his order. 5. As regards the first point of Mr. Dasgupta, we find that the prayer for adjournment was not before the Commissioner on the day the hearing took place. Opportunity of hearing thus cannot be said to have had been denied. Reference to the letter of adjournment in the order of the Commissioner cannot be a ground for revisiting the circumstances under which the order was passed on 10th Decem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n applying this exception". 7. In our opinion, the very fact that the adjournment petition was received after the hearing was concluded at best could imply that the assessee was seeking re-hearing, and we do not think such a plea was justified. No application for adjournment was made on the day the hearing was scheduled to take place before the Commissioner. If the noticee does not turn up before the authority before whom he has to respond to the notice, but seeks adjournment of hearing after two days, the noticee cannot complain of violation of the principles of natural justice. This would constitute a default on the part of the noticee in availing of the opportunity of being heard. A subsequent prayer for rehearing would be akin to an ....