M/s. Ram Paltan Jaiswal & Other, Faizabad V. DCIT, Faizabad

ITA 270/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 27023714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K B AJAJ

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE HONBLE SHRI H.L. KARWA AND HONBLE SHRI N.K. SAINI ITA NO.270/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 M/S RAM PALTAN JAISWAL & OTHERS SUCHITGANJ, FAIZABAD V. DCIT FAIZABAD CIRCLE, FAIZABAD PAN:ADLPA0225F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. P. K. BAJAJ, D.R. O R D E R PER H. L. KARWA: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 30.3.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.7.2011. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 13.6.2011 AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. THE NOTICE SENT BY RPAD TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK UN-SERVED. THUS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING. IN OUR OPINION 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, ET NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. 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: :-2-: 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. 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 WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.7.2011. SD/- SD/- [ N. K. SAINI] [H. L. KARWA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:11.7.2011 JJ:1107 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR