Sh. Subhash Chander Kasrija, Muktsar V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda

ITA 319/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68241 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 318 & 319 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN: ANYPK6416F SUBASH CHANDER KASRIJA, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF MUKTSAR INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 03.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.12.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS AG AINST DIFFERENT IMPUGNED ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, EACH D ATED 28.02.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. NOTICES OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 03.12.2013 WER E ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 3 6, COLUMN NO. 10, WHICH WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, AS PER ACKNOWL EDGEMENT ON RECORD. IN SPITE OF THE SAME, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE 2 I.T.A. NOS. 318 & 319 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 MATTER. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT 3 I.T.A. NOS. 318 & 319 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08 PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE APPLICATION FOR RECALLIN G OF THIS ORDER UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD DECEMBER, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 3 RD DECEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SUBASH CHANDER KASRIJA, MUKTSAR 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II , BATHINDA 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.