Shri Manu Jain, Ludhiana V. DCIT, C-VII, Ludhiana

ITA 1096/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5096 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1096/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. MANU JAIN VS. THE DCIT (PROP. M/S B.R. ENTERPRISES) CIRCLE-VII, LUDHIAN A PAN NO. ADOPJ6470C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 22/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4, LUDHIANA, DT. 28/04/2017. 2. THE APPEAL WERE FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENC H TODAY I.E 22/03/2018. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKIN G ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEE P UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILAN TIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HO LD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD , WE PLACED RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 22/3 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 2 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PR OSECUTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27/03/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR