The Markandey Mahila Multipurpose Co- Operative Soc Ltd., Belgaum V. Income Tax Officer (Ward ) 1(2), Belgaum

ITA 204/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 20424114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BARTHAKUR LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 204 /PNJ/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2010 - 11) THE MARKANDEY MAHILA MULTIPURPOSE CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. 12, AT POST, KANGRALI - KHURD, TAL AND DIST BELGAUM. PAN:AABAM5563 C (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2) . BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BARTHAKUR , LD. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 09/06 /2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/06 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA THI S APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE A SSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BELGAUM, DATED 20 TH MAY , 2013 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11. THE ABOVE CASE WA S FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05.09.2013, 21,10,2013, 23,12,2013 , 24,02,2014 & 31 . 03.2014. DURING THE LAST DATE OF HEARING DT.31.03.2014 A T THE REQUEST OF A SSESSEES APPLICATION THE CASE WA S ADJ OURNED FOR 09.06.2014. TODAY O N 09.06.2014, NEITHER APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE US . WE THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. 2. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERIN G THE FACTS AND 2 . ITA NO. 204/PNJ/2013 (A.Y.2010 - 11) KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRA O HOLKAR VS. CWT, WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WILLING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS. OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 (AP) AND 265 ITR 252. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.06 .2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 0 9 .06. 2014 P.S. - *PK* COPY TO : ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER