Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1471/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51365 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V GOPALA RAO CIT IDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1471/BANG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NO.380, OPP. TO CPWD QUARTERS, 3 RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 034. PAN : AAACI 3805Q VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V. GOPALA RAO, CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2011 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.8.2010 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, BANGALORE. 2. THE REGISTRY HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 65 DAYS, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THIS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LE TTER DATED 21.1.2011, ITA NO.1471/BANG/10 PAGE 2 OF 3 BUT NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO GE T THE SAID DEFECT RECTIFIED. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.11 .2011 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 30.09 .2011 AND THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. HOWEVER DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRE SENT, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS SENT. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RI GHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS 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 LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITT ED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1471/BANG/10 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NO N-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.