Sh. Inderjit Kainth, V. The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 210/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68110 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 210(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: AHTPK5399L INDERJEET KAINTH, H. NO. 2365, VS. INCOME TAX O FFICER, PHASE X, MOHALI WARD 1(1), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 05.08.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.08.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2) NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 05.08.2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT 2 INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAWS AID THOS E WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. T HE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 (2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3) SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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. 4) SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 5) THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT 3 PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 6) SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH AUGUST, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: INDERJEET KAINTH, H. NO. 2365, PHASE X, MOHALI 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.