Sh. Anil Bansal, Panchkula V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 199/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4457 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARVEER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 197 TO 199/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 SHRI ANIL BANSAL, VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II , PANCHKULA CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABGPB9697R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)(CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 14.12.2012 . 2. EARLIER, THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.4.2013 BUT WERE ADJOURNED TO 17.6.2013 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSE L OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 17.6.2013, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND HEARING W AS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. THE CASES WERE FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON TODAY I .E. 18.9.2013 FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD BUT NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UP ON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2 RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (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, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED 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 477-4 78) 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 THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.09.2013 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 18 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH