M/s. Gripwell Tools Industries, Jalandhar V. The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar

ITA 180/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 18020914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIL

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.180(ASR)/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 PAN :AACFG0536D M/S. GRIPWELL TOOLS INDUSTRIES VS. ADDL. C.I.T. C-104, FOCAL POINT EXTENSION, RANGE-II, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NIL RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/12/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:18/12/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 12.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. EARLIER, THE AFORESAID APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARI NG BEFORE THE BENCH ON 25.07.2012. BUT ON THE REQUEST OF SH. J.S. BHASIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.10.2012. ON 16.10.2012, MR. J.S. BHASIN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED A ND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE AND THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJ OURNED TO 18.12.2012 I.E. FOR TODAY. SH. BHASIN, NOTED THE DATE OF HEARING AN D ALSO ENDORSED THE SAME IN THE FILE. TODAY, IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, NEITH ER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS 2 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME I S LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE V IGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN 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 ITAT DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD; 38-ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 -ITR-480, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. WE ORDER ACCO RDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE THE APPLICATION, IF SO ADVISED, TO RECALL THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18TH DECEMBER., 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. PATEL PHARMACY, CIVIL LINES, JALA NDHAR. 2. THE ADDL. CIT,R-II, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR 3 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.