TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence in support of his claim, filed the present petition in the Court - as the adjudication proceedings consequent to the order of the ITAT are pending before the AO it is desirable that assessee should attend the personal hearing as and when the matter is fixed for hearing by the AO - in favour of revenue. - WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-7-2012 - S. J. VAZIFDAR M. S. SANKLECHA,JJ. Mr. S. C. Tiwari a/w Ms. Natasha Mangat i/b Mr. S. C. Tiwari, Mr. R. Asokan, Ms. Natasha Mangat,for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT ( Per M. S. Sanklecha, J) 1 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to: (a) quash a notice dated June 6, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t some of the diamond jewellery and precious stones which were seized during the search belonged to others and not to the petitioner. The Tribunal directed as under: We have heard the parties and considered their submissions. As evident from the grounds of appeal, the items in question are stated to have been given by Shri. Subhan Jain (Rs.1,66,000/); Shri. Maheshkumar Hiralal Parikh (Rs. 18,40,650/) and Shri. Nayan Dinkar Desai (Rs.4,64,650/). At the time of hearing before us, the learned authorized representative for the assessee reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before the Departmental authorities that all the aforesaid items of jewellery were covered by the disclosure made by Shri. Subhash Jain, shri. Maheshkuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordance with the directions in the order dated August 10, 2006 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal fixed the hearing of the petitioner s case on June 15, 2011 at 3.30 p.m. and called upon the petitioner to submit evidence with regard to its claim that part of the seized diamonds and precious jewellery were owned by Subhash Jain, Maheshkumar Parikh and Nayan Desai The respondent sent a reminder dated 6th June, 2011. 5 The petitioner, instead of attending the hearing before the Assessing Officer and producing the necessary evidence in support of his claim, filed the present petition in this Court. The advocate for the petitioner, submits that in view of the inordinate delay and the fact that the petitioner is an old person, the entire proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
