Unity Technical institute Society, Lucknow V. DCIT-v, Lucknow

ITA 242/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 24223714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.242 & 243(LKW.)/2011 A.YS.: 2006-07 & 2007-08 UNITY TECHNICAL INSTITUTE VS. THE DY.CIT, RANGE- V, SOCIETY, LUCKNOW. 178/152,B.N.ROAD, GOLAGANJ, LUCKNOW. PAN AAATU2624A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW DATED 31.1.2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10.8.2011. 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, 2 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: 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. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.8.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT AUGUST 10TH , 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.