Lathi Trust, UDAIPUR V. CIT (Exemption), JAIPUR

ITA 282/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1964 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.282/JODH/2016 UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B) & 80G(5)(VI) LATHI TRUST VS. CIT(EXEMPTION) 30, AGRASEN NAGAR JAIPUR UDAIPUR PAN NO. AABTL3285D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ALKA R. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 01/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM BY THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLEN GE IS POSED TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(E), JAIPUR IN REJECTING THE APPLI CATION FILED IN FORM NO. 10A AND FORM NO. 10G DENYING REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12A A AND EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 80G. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THESE FACTS IN COLUMN NO. 5 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ARE O RDERS UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B) & 80G(5)(VI). THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 26/08/2016. THE REGISTRY IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS HAS ISSUED A DEFECT MEMO TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20/09/2016 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SEPARATE APPEALS FOR ORDERS UNDER SEPARATE SECTIONS. TILL DATE NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ADDRESS THE DEFECT POINTED OUT. THE APPEAL HAS CAME UP FOR HEAR ING ON 25/01/2017, 21/02/2017 AND AGAIN ON 18/04/2017 AND THEREAFTER O N 01/05/2017. ACCORDINGLY 2 GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT IN APPEAL WHEREAS IT IS NOT CL EAR WHICH ORDER IS UNDER CHALLENGE WOULD BE A MEANINGLESS EXERCISE AMOUNTING TO WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWIC E NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ULTIMATELY THE REQUEST WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI AS THE ASSESSE E BY NOT CURING THE DEFECT MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEA L FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AN D ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO A RE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL 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 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 ON 03/05/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03/05/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR