GURLABH RAI BATRA S/ SHAM LAL BATRA, MUKATSAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), MUKATSAR

ITA 224/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7976 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.224(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 GURLABH RAI BATRA S/O SHAM LAL BATRA KOTKAPURA ROAD, MUKTSAR PAN:ABLPB1793P VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 03.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.04.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 22.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA, IN APP EAL NO.289/CIT(A)/BTI/15-16, BY WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) ON NON- PROSECUTION DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . ITA NO.224/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2010-11) GURLABH RAI BATRA, MUKTS AR VS. ITO 2 2. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSEEE HAS PAID APPEAL FEE T O THE TUNE OF RS. 500/- ONLY WHEAS THE REQUISITE APPEAL FEE IS 10000/- AND THERE IS DEFICIENCY OF 9500/- AND COMMUNICATION OF T HE DEFECT WAS SENT TO THE ASSEEEE AND NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36 OF THE APPEAL, FOR FIXIN G THE APPEAL FOR HEARING THROUGH SPEED POST ON 30.08.2017, 01.01.2 018 & 03.04.2018. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN SERV ED THROUGH SPEED POST AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN RETURNED BY T HE POSTAL DEPARTMENT WITH REMARKS REFUSED' {RETURNED TO SENDER}. TILL DATE NEITHER THE DEFECTS HAS BEEN CURED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR SERVICES OF NOTICES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED AND IN TH E AFORESAID EVENTUALITY, WE DO NOT HAVE OPTION EXCEPT T O DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. IT IS TRITE TO SAY THAT PRISTINE MAXIM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT , WHICH DEFINES THAT LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS, HA S APPROPRIATE APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL REASON BEST KNOWN TO HIM ON THE AFORESAID OBSERVATION AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMIN E. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRAY FOR RECALL OF ORDER BY CURING THE DEFECT AND EXPLAINING THE REASO N FOR NON- PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO.224/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2010-11) GURLABH RAI BATRA, MUKTS AR VS. ITO 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.04.2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 12.04.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) GURLABH RAI BATRA, MUKTSAR (2) THE ITO, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR (3) THE CIT(A), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER