Allahabad Bank, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9796 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1049/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ALLAHABAD BANK, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), MAIN BRANCH, PANCHKULA. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN: AACCA8464F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.07.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 2.1.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 272B OF THE ACT. 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT EARLIER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WAS LATER ON FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2 22.7.2015. HOWEVER, ON THIS DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO A RE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 I TR 461 AT 3 PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND JULY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH