Sh. Surjit Singh Lamba, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 170/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5783 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.170(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-01 PAN :ABOPSO694R SH. SURJIT SNGH LAMBA, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 150, TAGORE NAGAR, WARD 1(4), JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: NONE DEPARTMENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 14.01.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO I N SHORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF AN ADDITION FOR A SUM OF RS.85,487/- BY APPLYING THE SAME RATE OF GROSS PROFIT OF 12.5% AS WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WITHOUT ASSIG NING ANY REASON AND THUS IGNORING THEREBY THE SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF APPLYING THE SAME RATE OF GROSS P ROFIT OF 2 12.5% IN THIS YEAR AS WELL, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FA CT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGES BECAU SE OF THE RISING COST FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF NO ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS (EXHIBITION OF FILMS) IS GIVING T HE ASSESSEE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS PER FILM EXHIBITED AS WAS I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 4. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF MISINTERPRETING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND HAS APPLIED 20% RATE OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE RECEIPTS FROM DOORDARSHAN KENDRA JALA NDHAR THEREBY MAKING ADDITION FOR RS.38011/-. HE HAS IGNO RED THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1997-98, 1998-99 HAS APPLIED 12.5% ON THE COMBINED RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM DOORDARSHAN KENDRA JALANDHAR AND SRIN AGAR. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ITO ON ACCOUNT OF NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION TH AT HIS CASE IS COVERED BY SECTION 44(AF) AND THE RATE OF GROSS PRO FIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE. 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO LEAVE OR ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10 TH JUNE, 2010. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEES. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED AD POST ON 24.05.2011. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK. THUS, IT I S PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. IT SEE MS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA 3 SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN M IND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND B Y RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD; 38- ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRAD ESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CW T (1997) 223-ITR-480, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. W E ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE STANDS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 TH JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. SURJIT SINGH LAMBA, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ITO, WARD 1(4), JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR. 4. THE CIT, JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR, ASR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.