M/s. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 27/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51398 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G V GOPALA RAO CIT IDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 27/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PVT. LTD., # 10/6, LAVELLE ROAD, BANGLAORE 560 001. PAN : AAACH 7551A VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 11(4), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.V. GOPALA RAO, CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2011 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, BANGALORE. 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.12.2011 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS MADE VIDE LETTER DATED 12.10.2011 AND THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13. 10.2011, WHEN THE ITA NO.27/BANG/11 PAGE 2 OF 3 CASE WAS EARLIER TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. HOWEVER DUR ING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 22.12.2011, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT, NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS S ENT. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEE P UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITT ED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A PRADESH 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO.27/BANG/11 PAGE 3 OF 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NO N-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2011. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.