M/s. Shree Tirupati Associates, BHILWARA V. ITO, BHILWARA

ITA 2/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9632 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 02 /JODH/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 11 - 12 M/S SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES VS. THE ITO 4/28, MANSINGH KA BUILDING, WARD - 2 BHADADA BAGH, BHOPAL GUNJ BHILWARA BHILWARA PAN NO. ABMFS4450P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 01 /0 3 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/03/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 05 / 11 /201 5 OF LD. CIT(A) , AJMER ON VARIOUS GROUNDS PERTAINING TO 20 11 - 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR . HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER T HR ICE . IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO POSITION REMAIN ED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON EACH OF THE DATE S WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING IT WAS ADJOURNED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE A S WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTR IES DT. 05/10/2016, 20/10/2016 AND 04/01/2017. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA 2 LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILAN T, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI . 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 02/03/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02/03/2017 AG COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT