M/s Oswal Garments Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, W-7(2), Ludhiana

ITA 1088/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6628 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1088/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 OSWAL GARMENTS LIMITED, VS. THE ITO, WARD 7(2), LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAACO2515M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, LUDHIAN A DATED 03.04.2017 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. IT, THEREFORE, APP EARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WHOLLY INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL, THERE FORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JUR A SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES AS WERE CONSIDERED 2 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 HOLKA R 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 RETURNED 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 477-4 78) 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. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11/2017 SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.11.2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR