Shri Udai Lal Anjana, UDAIPUR V. ACIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 119/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1956 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.119/JODH/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 SHRI UDAI LAL ANJANA VS. THE ACIT C/O. M/S. G.K. GARGJEYA & CO. CIRCLE-1, NEW FATEH PURA OPP. MEHA SADAN, MADHUVAN UDAIPUR UDAIPUR PAN NO. ABNPA4495M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL ING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 09/03/2016 OF CIT(A)-1, UDAIPUR PERTA INING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD SEEKING TIME. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT, IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER, IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO THE POSITION REMAIN ED THE SAME. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY A COUNSEL HOWEVER HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS F URTHER SEEN THAT THE SAME COUNSEL HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION REQUESTING PREPONING THE PRESENT APPEAL FIXED ON 11/01/2017 TO 10/01/2017 BY APPLICATION DATED 22/12/ 2016. ON 10/01/2017 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 24/01/2017. ON THE SAID DATE ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT WAS REQUESTED. NOTICE FOR PRESENT DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 13 /04/2017 WHEREIN THE PRESENT ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT REPEAT EDLY INDULGENCE HAS BEEN 2 SHOWED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT / PREPONING HAD BEEN ALLOWED HOWEVER TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE COUNSEL WHO HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. INFA CT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF ANY COUNSEL HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER RECORD TILL DATE. DEFECT NOTICE TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE ON 03/06/2016 ITSELF. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GRANT OF FURTHER ADJO URNMENT ON THE REQUEST OF A COUNSEL IN WHOSE FAVOUR THERE IS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY AVA ILABLE ON RECORD WOULD AMOUNT TO WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY, AS THE ASSESSEE BY NOT APPOINTING ANY COUNSEL MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL ) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 3. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CAS E THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION O N THE DATE OF HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 04/05/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE