Sub Registrar, SIROHI V. DIT (I&CI), JAIPUR

ITA 156/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1949 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.156/JODH/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SUB REGISTRAR VS. THE DIT(I&CI) PINDWARA JAIPUR SIROHI PAN NO. JDHT01571D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 06/01/2016 OF LD. CI T(A)-2, JODHPUR IS ASSAILED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO TH E POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/04/2016, WHEREIN ON 23/06/2016 THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT MULTIPLE DEFECTS. TILL DATE THE DEFECTS REMAIN NOT CURED. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAD COME UP FOR HEARING ON 16/01/2017, 02/03/2017 A ND AGAIN ON 02/05/2017 FOR HEARING. WHEREAS ON EARLIER TWO OCCASIONS THE A PPEAL WAS ADJOURNED AS THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL. HOWEVER ON THE INSTANT DA TE NO ONE WAS PRESENT IN 2 SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FILED. NOTICE FOR THE SPECIFI C DATE OF HEARING AS PER RECORD HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13/04/2017 AND P ROOF OF SERVICE BY WAY OF A.D IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT AND HAS CHOSEN TO REMAIN UNREPRESENTED DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE THE ASSESS EE CAN BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT V S. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 2 23 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTE D OUT IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 05/05/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE