Shri Achal Jain, Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, W-2, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 1038/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6570 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1038/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SH. ACHAL JAIN, VS. THE ITO, S/O LATE SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN JAIN, WARD-2, MANDI GO BINDGARH PROP. M/S AVON STEELS, MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN NO. AGJPJ1076E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PATIALA RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. INITIALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 09.11.2017 BUT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.11.2017. ON TODAY I.E. 27.11.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE O F HEARING. IT, THEREFORE, 2 APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WHOLLY INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN ADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLK AR 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 NO T 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 RE TURNED 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 477- 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 27.11.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR