M/s Shiva Iron Manufacturing Co., Ludhiana V. Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

ITA 170/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5371 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 170/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S SHIVA IRON MANUFACTURING CO. VS. THE ITO, PVT LTD, KOHARA, MACHIWARA ROAD, WARD 3(3), VILL. PANEJETA, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. ANCS6244G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.01.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-1, LUDHIANA RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. NONE HAS COME FOR APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. EVEN THE APPEAL IS BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD OF 1 DAY BUT NO APPLICATION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED. EVEN THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RELUCTANT TO APP EAR BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ALSO. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER 2 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CATEGORICALL Y WRITTEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE COMPLETE INFORMATION AND DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND EVEN DID NOT COOPERATE IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18 .11.2016 HAS OBSERVED THAT ONE SHRI GAURAV SHIBE ATTENDED THE HE ARING BUT FAILED TO FILE ANY SUBMISSIONS. NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED DESPITE GIVING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) PER F ORCE PASSED THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. EVEN BEF ORE US, ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 11.10.2017, SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AND A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TODAYS HEARING BUT NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PERUSING HIS APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS . THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN ADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLK AR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 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 NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477- 478) 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 THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09.01.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR