Bhawana Lodha, JODHPUR V. ACIT, JODHPUR

ITA 121/JODH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1607 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 120 & 121/JU/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 SMT. BHAWANA LODHA VS. THE A.C.I.T G 145, SHASTRI NAGAR CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 JODHUPR JODHPUR PAN NO: ACGPL 4478 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 11.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.02.2013 ORDER PER BENCH :- THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR DATED 14.0 2.2011. 2. EARLIER, THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.09.2012 BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.11.12 AND AGAIN ON 7.1.2013 AS NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR HEARING AGAIN 2 TODAY, I.E. 11.2.2013. HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, T HEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE TH E MATTERS. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UP ON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 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 NOT 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) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 3 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 APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11-02-2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR