M/s. JV Steel Traders, Moga V. The Addl.Commissioner of Income-tax, Moga

ITA 173/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2247 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 173(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN: AABFJ7892G JV STEEL TRADERS, 618, VS. ADDL. C.I. T., MOGA RANGE, DEV SAMAJ STREET, MOGA MOGA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 26.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.06.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2) NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 26.06.2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS 2 I.T.A. NO. 173(ASR)/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURP OSE WOULD BE SERVED BY ISSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AGAIN AND AGAIN O N THE SAME ADDRESS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY FRESH ADD RESS FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOSED HIS BUSINESS OR CHANGED HIS ADDRESS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECU TION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON TH IS GROUND ITSELF. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WH O SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOW N DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA LTD; 38- ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE 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 PROSECUTIO N. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO RECALL THIS ORDER BY FILLING MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IF SO ADVISED, A S PER LAW. 3 I.T.A. NO. 173(ASR)/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 3) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JUNE, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26 TH JUNE, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: JV STEEL TRADERS, 618, DEV SAMAJ STR EET, MOGA 2. THE ADDL. C.I.T., MOGA RANGE , MOGA 3. THE CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA 4. THE CIT, LUDHIANA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.