Sarika Paints Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DY.CIT.,Circle-8, Ahmedabad

ITA 1282/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8627 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C

Judgement Text

ITA.1300-1400/07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JM AND D.C.AGRAWAL, AM SARIKA PAINTS LTD., 4-A NATRAJ INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SANAND VIRAMGAM HIGHWAY, VASNA-IYAVA,TA. SANAND, AHMEDABAD. V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1), A-WING, AJANTA COMMERCIAL CENTRE, ASHRAM ROAQD, AHMEDABAD. PAN NO.AAECS 3239 C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- NONE. RESPONDENT BY:- MR.M.C. PANDIT,SR.D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL. J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 11.07.2006 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON LAW AND FACTS IN C ONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. WITH RESPECT TO THE N ON RECOVERABLE ADVANCE OF RS.44,49,573/- CLAIMED AS BU SINESS LOSS BY THE APPELLANT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT AS BUSINESS LOSS. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) MAY PLEASE BE SET ASIDE AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BE AL LOWED. ITA NO. 1282/AHD/2007 ASST. YEAR :2003-04 2 2. IN THIS CASE, NOTICE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 9-3-2010 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THIS NOTI CE IS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS THAT FACTO RY IS CLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED CORRECT/CHANGED ADDRESS TO THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. 3. THE LAW ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT TH OSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WEL L KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONS IDERED IN 32 ITD 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. , WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED IN LI MINE. SD/- SD/- (T. K. SHARMA ) (D.C.AG RAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED :- 12-03-2010 PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12/03/2010