Dr. Ashok S. Godhi, Belgaum V. CIT Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 117/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 11724114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR S SUNDARESAN LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O S . 117 & 118 /PNJ/201 4 : (A.Y S - 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ) DR. ASHOK S. GODHI 513, SECTOR III, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, BELGAUM 590010. PAN : ABTPG6456A ( APPELLANT) VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. S. SUNDARESAN, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 01 /201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 12 / 01 /201 5 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BELGAUM DT. 20.1.2014 AND 3.3.2014 FOR A.Y S 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09 RESPECTIVELY . THE APPEAL S W ERE FIXED FOR HEARING PREVIOUSLY ON 24.6.2014, 7.8.2014 AND 5.11.2014 AND ON ALL OCCASIONS, EXCEPT THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, HAD BEEN ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. 12.1.2015 BUT THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT REMAIN PRESENT. 2. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. 2 ITA NO. 117 /PNJ/2014 (A. Y : 200 7 - 0 8 ) MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HO L KAR V. CWT, WE TREAT THE APPEA L S AS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR DEFAULT SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WILLING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL S . OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 (AP) AND 265 ITR 252. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/2015 . S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 2 /01/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ,