M/s Oriental Electronics, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

CO 48/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7638 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. NO. 48/CHD/2011 [IN ITA NO. 211/CHANDI/2011] ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S ORIENTAL ELECTRONICS, VS THE ITO, WARD-1, PATIALA PATIALA PAN NO. AABFO1368C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2012 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (ARISES OUT OF ITA NO. 211/CHANDI/2011) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A), PATIALA DATED 4.1.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ABOVE CROSS OBJECTION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.8.2012. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER . THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS . THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENT IBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 2 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., I TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477- 78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2012 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR