Firoz Khan Pathan, RAJSAMAND V. ITO, RAJSAMAND

ITA 295/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 29523314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 294, 295 & 296/JODH/2013 (A.YS : 2004-05 TO 2006-07) FIROZ KHAN PATHAN, VS ITO, WARD-1, GOAN PASUND, RAJSAMAND. RAJSAMAND. PAN NO. AGVPP 0715 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2 013 ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 07.02.2013 OF LEARNED CIT(A), UDAIPUR. 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.10.201 3, BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.10.2013, NE ITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTERS. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO 2 SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RUL E 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 THESE APPEALS AS UN-ADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 48 0) 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE 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 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 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11.10. 2013) (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013 VR/ COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR 4