Sh. Brij Mohan , Pehowa V. ITO, W-1, Kurukshetra

ITA 162/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1297 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 162/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SH BRIJ MOHAN, VS. THE ITO,WARD-1, S/O PALA RAM KURUKSHETRA VPO JALBEHRA, TEHSIL PEHOWA, KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA PAN NO. BHBPM5463L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09. 2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(A), KARNAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. NO ONE HAS COME FOR APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. 3. THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF 8 DAYS. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THIS RESPECT WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY T O THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH A LETTER DATED 23.3.2018 HAS BEEN RECEIVED, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT DUE TO HIS FATHER ILLNESS AND ITA NO. 162/CHD/2018- SH. BRIJ MOHAN, KURUKSHETRA 2 HOSPITALIZATION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE AP PEAL IN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD. HOWEVER, NEITHER ANY FORMAL APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED NOR ANY SUP PORTING DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE PLEAS HAS BEEN FIL ED. EVEN WE FIND THAT THE CASE ALSO REMAINED UNREPRESENTED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER PER FORCE FRAMED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. ON MERITS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A GROU ND AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE APPLICATION AND CALLED FOR REMAND REP ORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO SU BMITTED AND HAS DECIDED THE CASE ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE S AID REMAND REPORT. 5. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTEREST ED IN PERUSING HIS APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, N OT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WE LL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 6. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 162/CHD/2018- SH. BRIJ MOHAN, KURUKSHETRA 3 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. 7. 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 AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 8. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PA GE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 9. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.09.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.09.2018 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT THE CIT(A) THE DR