Ramu Basappa Bhikaji., Belgaum V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 (2), Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 263/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9494 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY SINGH RAWAT LD

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O . 263 /PNJ/201 4 : (ASST. YEAR - 2006 - 07 ) RAMU BASAPPA BHIKAJI SHIVAJI ROAD, JAMBOTI ROAD, KHANAPUR DIST. BELGAUM PAN : BKTPB5611A ( APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 2(2), BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : VINAY SINGH RAWAT, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 08 / 01 /201 5 DATE OF ORDER : 08 / 01 /201 5 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BELGAUM DT. 26.5.2014 FOR A.Y 2006 - 07. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.11.2014 AND NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT BY REGD. A.D. ON 26.09.2014. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS APPLICATION DT. 13.11.2014 REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR 8.1.2015. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT EVEN TODAY I.E. 8.1.2015. 2. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) O F THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. 2 ITA NO. 263/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2006 - 07) MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HO L KAR V. CWT, WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WILLING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 ( AP) AND 265 ITR 252. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 / 0 1/ 201 5 . S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 0 8 / 0 1/ 201 5 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT (A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ,