M/s. Jai International, Udaipur V. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 138/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6587 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 138/JODH/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) M/S JAI INTERNATIONAL, G-1/202, UDYOG VIHAR, SUKHER, UDAIPUR VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAAFJ7582Q REVENUE BY SH. P.K. SINGI, DR ASSESSEE BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 30.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.04.2019 O R D E R PER N. K. SAINI, V.P. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS), UDAIPUR 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIE R THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.10.2018 BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR TODAY I.E. 30.04.2019. THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING WAS SENT TO THE 2 ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36/CI T(A)S ORDER WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON 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. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (22 3 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 PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSI STANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. 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 APPEAL BUT EFF ECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE 3 THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROV ISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED . (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30.04.2019) SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (N.K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 30.04.2019 .. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. / CIT 4. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. , ! , $ / DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. ' / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR