Hari Krishan Gupta, Bilaspur V. ITO, Bilaspur

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6515 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1308/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 HARI KRISHAN GUPTA, PROP. VS. THE ITO, WARD-6 SUNEEL ASSOCIATES AND HOTEL PANCHWATI, BILASPUR HOUSE NO. 171, SECTOR 2 DISTT. BILASPUR (H.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], PALAMPUR DATED 27.06.2017. 2. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY ON 17.11.2017 THROUGH REGISTERED POST. A PERUSAL OF THE FILE FURTHER REVEALS THAT DEFECTS WE RE POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE / DEFECT MEMO WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 26.10 .2017 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS BUT NEITHER THE DEFE CTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED NOR ANYONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE TO PROSECUTE THE 2 APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WHOLLY INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NO T THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CON SIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN 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 HOLK AR 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 NO T 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 RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477- 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.12.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR