Sh. Narendra Kumar Prop., Aligarh V. I.T.O.-Ward-4, Aligarh

ITA 263/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 26320314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, SMC, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.263/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. XAVIER TRADING CO., WARD-4, ALIGARH. RAM VIHAR COLONY, PALA, SADABAD ROAD, ALIGARH. (PAN: AKEPK 9287 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.04.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THIS OFFICE HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE AT COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. INSPITE OF THE SAME, WHEN THE MATTER C AME UP FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. 01.11.2011, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOUR NMENT HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE ITA NO.263/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 2 ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON CO-OPERATIVE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, I AM OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUT E. THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND NOT THOSE WHO SLE EP OVER THEM. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND BY THE HIGHER COURTS, AS IN THE CAS E OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), I TREAT THE ASS ESSEES APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED, AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. I MAY LIKE TO CLAR IFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESSEE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECAL L OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO S ATISFIED, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2011). SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 1 ST NOVEMBER, 2011 PBN/* ITA NO.263/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CO NCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY