V.K. Kapur, J.M. - (1.) THIS stay application has been filed by the assessee praying therein for the stay of recovery of demand of Rs. 2,42,78,678/- THIS stay application came up for hearing on 11th February, 2004 when the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are other applications also filed by the same assessee pertaining to other years being Stay No. 60/Del/2004, 61/Del/2004 and 62/Del/2004 and it was in this background suggested that the applications No.68 & 69/Del/2004 which were posted for hearing be adjourned to some other date. It was the submission of assessee that the facts and the issues involved in all the stay applications are common and all the demands of the Revenue have emanated out of a common search. To the request of the assessee so made it was pointed out to the assessee to explain as to what prejudice would it cause if these applications, which were posted, were heard prior to the applications, which were not listed. To this, query of the bench the Ld. AR contended that he would argue the matter, if time is granted, Under these circumstances the matter was adjourned to 12th February, 2004, On 12th February, 2004 the same request for adjourning this matter on the ground that the other applications were pending, this time through the written communication was once again made. As the Ld. Counsel had agreed to argue the matter the previous day i.e., on 11.12.2002, we, in these circumstances rejected the application and proceeded to hear the matter.
(2.) Necessary facts available on record for the adjudication of the present controversy are that a search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 1st September, 1994. Consequent to the search, the AO called upon the assessee to file the return. After various adjournments the return was filed. The AO felt that the return which was filed was not a complete return. Certain relevant documents had not been enclosed with the return. As the return was not complete, the AO called upon the assessee to remove the defects which was not complied with. As the defects which were pointed out by the AO to the assessee were not rectified, the AO declared the return to be invalid and issued notice u/s 147 read with Section 148. Thereafter some questionnaire was also sent. Notice u/s 142(1) was also sent to the assessee asking to file the details pertaining to the questionnaire sent. Despite time having been granted by the AO. there was according to the AO, no cooperation being extended by the assessee for completion of the assessment and, in this background the AO keeping in mind that the assessment was getting time barred proceeded u/s 144 and framed the assessment. It is also on record that the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 28th April, 1999 against the order of the AO which appeal was also disposed of on 23th February, 2001. The record reveals that during the period of pendency of the appeal the only representation which was made by the assessee before the CIT(A) was on 15th January, 2001 through the attorney and that appearance was only for the purpose of seeking adjournment, which was granted but despite the adjournment having been granted no one thereafter appeared before the CIT(A), and, in this background, the CIT(A) also decided the appeal ex-parte.
(3.) THE assessee being not satisfied with the order of the CIT(A) has filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the pendency of the present appeal, it appears that the Revenue started insisting for the payment of the outstanding amounts on account of the arrears of tax, and this insistence by the Revenue has led the assessee to file the present application before us, for the stay of the recovery of demand.;