Sh. Naveen Shivhare, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Circle-3, Gwalior

ITA 101/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9987 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.101&102/AG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 AND 2005-06 SH. NAVEEN SHIVHARE, VS. THE CIT M-40, GANDHI NAGAR, GWALIOR, GWALIOR PAN NO. AEMPG8216L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/02/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.03.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), GWALIOR. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20 .05.2014 BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.06.2014 BECAUSE BENCH DID NOT FUNCT ION ON THAT DAY. THEREAFTER, ON MANY OCCASIONS THIS CASE WAS F IXED FOR HEARING BUT TIME AND AGAIN IT WAS ADJOURNED EITHER AT THE R EQUEST OF THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE OR FOR THE REASON THAT BEN CH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DAY. LATER ON, THE CASE WAX FIX ED FOR HEARING ON 03.02.2016. HOWEVER, ON TODAY I.E. 03/02/2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN TH E WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, 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, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETU RNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PERSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 03/02/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR