Smt. Tarvinder Kaur, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 135/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90245 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 135 TO 137/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2005-06) AND ITA NO. 138/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT.TARVINDER KAUR, VS. THE A.C.I.T., 151-L, MODEL TOWN, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AGNPK0755D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.RAJINDER KAUR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.07.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA ALL DATED 3.10.2013 FOR T HE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT ON EARLIER OCCASIONS, THESE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE NOTICES WERE ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONING. THE A PPEALS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 21.7.2015 AND THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEA LS. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAWS AID T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS . THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 (2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 3 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 I TR 461 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JULY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH