M/s. PSM Realmart Private Limited, BHILWARA V. ITO, BHILWARA

ITA 316/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9655 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 316 /JODH/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 2 - 1 3 M/S PSM REALMART PRIVATE LTD. VS. THE ITO C/O A.K. SOMANI & ASSOCIATES WARD - 1 F - 115, BHILWARA TEXTILE M ARKET, BHILWARA BHILWARA PAN NO. A AECP4592R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 27/02/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 19/07/2016 OF LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013 . HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE . I N THE SECO ND ROUND ALSO THE ASSESSEE REMAIN UN REPRESENTED. THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST OCCASION ALSO WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING I.E; 03/01/2017 TH E ASSESSEE REMAIN UNREPRESENTED. A CCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PASSING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH I HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LEMINE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 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 REPRE SENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING 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 L IMINE . THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 28/02/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/02/2017 AG COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT