Dr. Mahesh Surtani, Faizabad V. ITO, Faizabad

ITA 214/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 21423714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI ITA NO.214, 215, 216 AND 217/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2000-01, 2001-02, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 DR. MAHESH SURTANI PROPRIETOR M/S HAPPY NURSING HOME BEGUMGANJ, MAQUBARA, FAIZABAD V. ITO WARDE-1, FAIZABAD PAN:AGFPS6326Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. VIVEK GUPTA, D.R. O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW, EACH DATED 3.1.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2001-02, 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 7.7.2011. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING. THUS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE 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 SUB VENIUNT'. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- :-2-: 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. 4. 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. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78 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 THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.7.2011. SD/- SD/- [ N. K. SAINI] [H. L. KARWA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:7.7.2011 JJ:0707 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR