BHUMIKA RAJESH VATNANI, MUMBAI V. 24(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 204/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6877 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RIDHISHA JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c); 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani, 2601/02 Royal Empire, Shashtri Nagar, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Vs. 24(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai. PAN NO. ADMPV 7590 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Ridhisha Jain Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/05/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds: 1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in passing an ex parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. 2. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though adjournment was the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. 3. Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be restored to the Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/ on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture L unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 1,25,988/ sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT act 1961 and for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on rec not comply to the various no the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though adjournment was sought and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder. Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be restored to the Hon'ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. t prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/ on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT act as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 1,25,988/-on account of hypothetical commission paid on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that though the assessee did the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), h the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 2 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in not issuing any fresh notice even though sought and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules Without prejudice to the other ground of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without considering the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be t prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 41,99,609/- on account of LTCG earned on sale of shares of Wagend Infra td claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the IT act as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO on account of hypothetical commission paid on sale of shares of Wagend Infra Venture Ltd as unexplained the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that parte without deciding the issue in dispute on merit and therefore, appeal may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the ord. We find that though the assessee did tices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in default without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “6. Decision I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No reply whatsoever has been submitted by the appellant. From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant h not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to grounds of appeal taken by him. So, the being disposed off ex records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The maxim 'vigilantibus non i.e. "the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights" is applicable in this case. 6.1 Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following the decision of H Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. 6.2 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No.6876/Mum/2008:Asst. Year 20 Shares & Stock Commissioner of Income follows:- "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. reproduced as under: I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted submission in the form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No oever has been submitted by the appellant. From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant h not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to grounds of appeal taken by him. So, the appeal filed by the appellant is being disposed off ex-parte on the basis of the material available on records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The maxim 'vigilantibus non-dermientibus jura subvenunt" assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights" is applicable in this case. 6.1 Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA No.6876/Mum/2008:Asst. Year 2005-2006 in the case of M/s. Classic Shares & Stock Broking Services Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax in the order dated 18.01.2012 has held as "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 3 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 without deciding the issue on merit. The relevant finding of the Ld. I have gone through the facts of the case, Statement of Facts filed alongwith Form No. 35 and the Assessment Order passed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has only submitted form of 'Statement of Facts'. After that neither he has replied to hearing notices nor submitted any documentary evidence/information to prove his side. Sufficient and adequate opportunities were afforded to the appellant as indicated supra. No From the above sequence of event, it can be seen that appellant has not replied to any of the notices issued on various occasion although notices have been duly served on the E Mail id provided. As the appellant has not availed any of the opportunities allowed to him to represent the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal matter and has to say nothing in the matter in addition to appeal filed by the appellant is parte on the basis of the material available on records without allowing any further opportunity of being heard to the dermientibus jura subvenunt" assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over 1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002- 03 in the case of M/s Chhabra, Land and housing Ltd. after following on'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in ITA 2006 in the case of M/s. Classic Broking Services Limited Vs. The Assistant tax in the order dated 18.01.2012 has held as "2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2012. However, appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has it moved any application for adjournment. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the 6.3 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No. 5532(Del)/2010 Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. follows:- "2. The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum which the appeal was fi attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither any any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." 6.4 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A No. 1038/Kol/2011 Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of attendance by holding as follows: "2. The case was fixed for hearing on 11.04.2012 the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the assessee is present nor there is any application for adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. 3. The law assists those who are sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the wellknown dictum subveniunt". 4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was CIT -vs. 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat t as dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." 6.5 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in I.T.A. No.971/Bang/2010 for Assessment Year 2004 Shri C.S. Ashok Prop. Trupti The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No. 5532(Del)/2010 of Assessment year: 2007-08 in the case of M/s Panwar Roshin & Turpentine Co. Ltd. vs Income-tax Officer has held as "2. The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an acknowledgement cum-notice was served on the bearer under which the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was called for hearing on this date, neither anybody attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in 1038/Kol/2011 for Assessment Year 1997-1998 in the case of Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of attendance by holding as follows:- "2. The case was fixed for hearing on 11.04.2012. However, on the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the assessee is present nor there is any application for adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. 3. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the wellknown dictum - "vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt". 4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) 2 ITA No. 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat t as dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in No.971/Bang/2010 for Assessment Year 2004-05; in the case of Shri C.S. Ashok Prop. Trupti Service Station vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 4 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in ITA No. 08 in the case of M/s tax Officer has held as "2. The appeal was filed on 08.12.2010 when an notice was served on the bearer under xed for hearing on 10.02.2011. None attended on that date. Thereafter, another notice dated 07.10.2011 was served on the assessee through the official courier, fixing the hearing on 13.12.2011. When the case was body attended nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench, Kolkata in 1998 in the case of Shyam Sunder Somani, vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 11.04.2012 has dismissed the appeal in absence of . However, on the date fixed for, i.e. 11.04.2012 neither anybody on behalf of the assessee is present nor there is any application for adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dormientibus, jura 4. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of considered in the case of Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) 2 ITA No. 1038/Kol./2011 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed." The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore Bench "A" in 05; in the case of Service Station vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as follows:- "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2004 Commissioner o 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 9.8.2011 after al Petition filed by the assessee. adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the ap those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well-known dictum, JURA SUB VENIUNT. the provisions of rule 19(2) of Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this appeal as un 3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of 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 court is not bound to answer the reference." 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble 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 there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6.6 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477 appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed" Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2004-05. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- Il at Bangalore dated 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 9.8.2011 after allowing the Misc. Petition filed by the assessee. Afterwards, the case was adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in known dictum, "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SUB VENIUNT. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del) we treat this appeal as un-admitted. 3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar 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 not bound to answer the reference." 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble 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 ere was not any assistance from the assessee. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477-78) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively ursuing the same. 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed" Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 5 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 Ward 4(3), Bangalore in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held as "This appeal is filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment 05. The appeal is directed against the order of the Il at Bangalore dated 22.01.2010. The appeal arise out of the assessment completed 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was lowing the Misc. Afterwards, the case was adjourned several times for various reasons and finally fixed for hearing on 18.4.2012. The assessee's counsel appeared on 24.02.2012 and in his presence the case was adjourned. The assessee has been seeking adjournment on the earlier occasions. However today, even date, when the case is posted for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested peal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in ET NON DORMIENTIBUS Considering the facts and keeping in view tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs.Multiplan India admitted. 3. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh Late Tukojirao Holkar 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 of the reference, the 5.7 Similarly, Hon'ble 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 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. 78) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non- 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed" 6.7 A similar view has been expressed by Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT 1 in ITA No. 706 & 707 (LKW)/2010 in its order dated 12 by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in its order dated 21 488(Asr)/2010 in the CC-1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of prosecution.” 3.1 Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue in dispute even in case of non assessee. The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. facts and circumstances appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order even representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/05/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. 6.7 A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench, Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT 1 in ITA No. 706 & 707 (LKW)/2010 in its order dated 12-01 by the Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar in its order dated 21-06-2011 in IT No. 488(Asr)/2010 in the case of M/s Shamsher Jang Bahadur vs ACIT, 1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue dispute even in case of non-representation on the part of the The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. facts and circumstances, we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned order even in case of representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/05/2024. Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 6 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench, Lucknow in the case of M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shiksha vs CIT- 01-2012 and 2011 in IT No. case of M/s Shamsher Jang Bahadur vs ACIT, 1, Jalandhar that the appeal is to be dismissed for want of Under the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is required to pass a reasoned order on the merit of the issue representation on the part of the The Ld. counsel on behalf of the assessee has given an undertaking that due compliance of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) would be made in case matter is sent back to him. In the we feel it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in case of non- representation on the part of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for /05/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Bhumika Rajesh Vatnani 7 ITA No. 204/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai