Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, V. Assistant Commisioner of Income tax,

ITA 153/JAB/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2155 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 153 /JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.153/JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, CIVIL LINES, KANDELI, NARSINGHPUR. PAN:AAAAJ 1410 G VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR. (APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, JABALPUR DATED 04/03/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BE FORE THE BENCH ON 07/11/2017. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASS ESSEE THROUGH RPAD, WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. THE LAWS AID THO SE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI I. V. KHANDELWAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 07/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/11/2017 I.T.A. NO. 153 /JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 2 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON P ROSECUTION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE ACT IN CASE HE SO DESIRES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2 017 SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:08/11/2017 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., ASST T. REGISTRAR