Shri Sunil Malviya, JODHPUR V. ITO, JODHPUR

ITA 214/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7798 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 21 4 / JU/ 20 1 4 [A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 ] SHRI SUNIL MALVIYA VS. THE I.T .O C/O MARUDHAR KESHRI MEDICAL STORE WARD 3(2) BILARA, JODHPUR JODHPUR PAN NO : AHAPM 2197 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : NONE DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI N.A. JOSHI DATE OF H EARING : 06 .0 8 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 .0 8 . 201 4 ORDER PER H ARI OM MARATHA , J .M. TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , JODHPUR DATED 08 . 0 1 .20 1 4 . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS CASE, N OBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE 2 LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VEN IUNT. 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 UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VI EW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE 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 H EARING, 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, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2 008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 3 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE 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 THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 TH AUGUST , 201 4. SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM B ER DATED : 06 TH AUGUST , 201 4 . VL/ - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR