M/s Savitri Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, C-5, Ludhiana

ITA 3/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0045 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S SAVITIRI ALLOYS PVT LTD., OPP. PRITHVI DHARAM KANDA, DABA ROAD, LUDHIANA VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 5, LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: AACCS1639J /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ! / REVENUE BY : SH. G.S.PHANI KISHORE, CIT DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2019 %&'( $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2019 / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-2, LUDHIANA. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. TH E NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MEN TIONED IN FORM NO. 36/CIT(A)S ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT INFORMED ITA NO. 03-CHD-2019 M/S SAVITRI ALLOYS PVT LTD., LUDHIAN A ABOUT THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS, IF ANY. IT, THEREFORE , APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. 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 480) 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. 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 AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO. 03-CHD-2019 M/S SAVITRI ALLOYS PVT LTD., LUDHIAN A 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. T HE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE IN COME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED . (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23.5.2019) SD/- SD/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 23.05.2019 .. &* +, -, / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' . / CIT 4. ' . ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,/0 1 , $ 1 , 23405 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 04 6# / GUARD FILE &* ' / BY ORDER, 7 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR