GlaxoSmithKline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0003 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1323/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 GLAXO SMITH KLINE ASIA(P) LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 4(1), DLF PLAZA TOWERS CHANDIGARH DLF CITY PHASE 1 GURGAON PAN NO. AABCS3237R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 12/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :12/05/2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CHANDIGARH DT. 09/10/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04. 2. ON 02/05/2016, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 12/05 /2016 ON REQUEST OF THE LD. DR. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED IN THE PRESENC E OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEVER ON THE DATE FIXED ON 12/0 5/2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT A SSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WE LL KNOWN 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 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 2 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 HEAR ING 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 RETU RNED 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 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 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 COURT ON 12/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12/05/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR