Seema Gupta, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 271/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6941 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.271/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SEEMA GUPTA VS. THE ACIT SCF 156, GRAIN MARKET CIRCLE 5(1) SECTOR 26, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABHPG9178M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 06/07/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/09/2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W HEREIN THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2016 OF LD. CI T(A)-2, CHANDIGARH IS ASSAILED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO TH E POSITION REMAINED THE SAME. RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 09/02/2017, WHEREIN ON 06/04/2017 THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT DEFECT. TILL DATE THE DEFECTS REMAIN NOT CURED. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT AND HAS CHOSEN TO REMAIN UNREPRESENTED DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. TH E ASSESSEE CAN BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL F ILED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. RELIAN CE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKO JIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THO SE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VI GILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF 2 HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTE D OUT IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUM AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE