Manjulata Soni, BIKANER V. ITO, BIKANER

ITA 210/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9636 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 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: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2016
• 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. 210 /JODH/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 12 - 13 SMT MANJULATA SONI VS. THE ITO C/O VIRENDRA JAIN(ADVOCATE) WARD - 1(3) C/O JAI KUMAR PUGALIA, BIKANER BIKANER PAN NO. BOLPS5406Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/03/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 29/02/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) , BIKANER ON VARIOUS GROUNDS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING ADJOURN MENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE AND IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE R EGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DEFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED AS THE CHALLAN IN SUPPORT OF THE TRIBUNAL FEE HAS NOT BEEN FILED. D EFECT MEMO T O THIS EFFECT HA S BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND REMAIN S NOT CURE D TILL DATE . IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 04/01/2017 ON WHICH DATE IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE . S INCE THE DEFECT CONTINUES TO REMAIN ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE APART FROM SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS NOT CARED TO ADDRESS THE SAME THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST IS REJECTED AS IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS 2 PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM ' VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN L I MIN I FOR NON PROSECUTION. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO A DD 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 ON THE UNDERTAKING THAT THE DEFECT ALSO SHALL BE CURED . TH E SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING 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