Sh. Manjit Kumar, Moga V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Moga

ITA 171/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 17120914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SR MAHAVIR SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 171(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: ACCPK4197J MANJIT KUMAR, VS. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE MOGA 618, DEV SAMAJ STREET, MOGA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SR. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA, DATED 04.01.2013, PASSE D FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 12.02.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD BUT DESPITE THIS, NEITHER THE ASSE SSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. 2 I.T.A. NO. 171(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN V IEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADM ITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 3 I.T.A. NO. 171(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE AN APPLICATION, IF SO AD VISED, FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED F OR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: MANJIT KUMAR, 618, DEV SAMAJ STREET, MOGA 2. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE MOGA 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.