Institutional Excellence Forum, V. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 294/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4035 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. P . K. BANSAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 294/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: N.A. INSTITUTIONAL EXCELLENCE FORUM D - 90, SECTOR 30 NOIDA V. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AABTI0447C (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI O. P. MEENA, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 10 08 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 08 2016 PER ABY T VARKEY, J.M : O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEA L PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW DATED 2.3.2016 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARIN G BEFORE THE BENCH ON 10.8.2016. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US . THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIAN CE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE TAKE NOTE THAT BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (EXEMPTIONS) ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR EVEN THOUGH NOTICES WERE SENT. THE NOTICES SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE ALSO RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK NO SUCH FIRM . THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, [ ITA NO.294/LKW/2016 ] 2 NOT TO THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM ' VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT '. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTA TE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED ABOVE, WE DI SMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.8.2016. SD/ - SD/ - [P. K. BANSAL ] [ ABY T VARKEY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DAT ED: 30 TH 1 . APPELLANT AUGUST , 2016 JJ: 1108 COPY FORWARDED TO: 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR