A.P.Associates, Basti V. ITO, Basti

ITA 321/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54798 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SITA SRIVASTAVAD R

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.321(LKW.)/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 M/S. A.P.ASSOCIATES, VS. THE ITO, SHIVA COLONY, BASTI. BASTI. PAN AAMFA2610C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. SITA SRIVASTAVA,D.R. DATE OF HEARING :25.8.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :25.8.2011 O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II, LUCKNOW DATED 28.2.2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.8.2011. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BY R.P.A.D. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING. THUS, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, 'VIGILANTIBUS, 2 ET NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES,1963, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 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 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT 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 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.8.2011. SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT AUGUST 25TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.