Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
22523714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
10-08-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
05-08-2013
Assessment Year
2004-2005
Appeal Filed On
29-04-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 225/LUC/11 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 04-05 SMT. ANITA SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-IV-1, 19/718, CHANDAN NIWAS, LUCKNOW. INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:ARVPS1208G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: MS. MANJU THAKUR, SR. D. R. O R D E R PER N. K. SAINI: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/01/2011 OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 10/08/2011. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION, SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, WAS FILED. THE -: 2 : - 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 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 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 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 -: 3 : - 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 THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/08/2011) SD/. SD/. (H. L. HARWA) (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10/08/2011 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
