Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd., UDAIPUR V. ACIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 310/JODH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3088 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL

Judgement Text

[1] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.310/JODH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1991-92 M/S HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS & VS. A.C.I.T., MINERALS LIMITED, CIRCLE-1, C/O PUNJAWAT, POKHARNA & HIRAN, UDAIPUR. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 107, BAPU BAZAR, UDAIPUR. PAN:AAACH4068A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.231 & 232/JODH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 M/S HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS & VS. A.C.I.T., MINERALS LIMITED, CIRCLE-1, C/O PUNJAWAT, POKHARNA & HIRAN, UDAIPUR. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 107, BAPU BAZAR, UDAIPUR. PAN:AAACH4068A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/07/2013 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS, BY THE SAME ASSESSEE, ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), UDAIPUR. THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR [2] 1991-92 IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26/03/200 9 WHILE THE OTHER TWO APPEALS EMERGE FROM COMMON ORDER DATED 25/03/2011. 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING MANY TIMES AN D MOST OF THE TIMES NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FEW OF THE INSTANCES WHEN THESE CASES WERE FIXED EARLIER ARE 03/01/2013, 04/0 3/2013, 13/03/2013, 03/06/2013 ETC. WHEN THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 10/07/2013 I.E. TODAY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MO VED APPLICATIONS DATED 09/07/2013 FOR ADJOURNMENT STATING THEREIN AS UNDER : THE ABOVE REFERRED APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEF ORE YOUR GOOD SELF ON JULY 10, 2013. SINCE I WAS BUSY WITH THE R EGISTRY AND FINAL FURNISHING OF MY NEW OFFICE WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 11, 2013, SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO PREPARE THIS APPEAL, THEREFORE , I WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO ATTEND THE HEARING TODAY. THEREFORE, WE REQUEST YOUR GOOD SELF TO KINDLY FIX ANOTHER DATE OF HEARING IF POSSIBLE IN NEXT MONTH AND OBLIGE. 3. FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE APPLICATIONS THE BENCH FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO VALID GROUND FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNME NT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JUR A SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 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 UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: [3] IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE 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 PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/07/2013) SD/. SD/. (HARI OM MARATHA) (N. K. SAI NI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED :10/07/2013 *CL SINGH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR