Karnail Singh, Kaithal V. ITO, Kaithal

ITA 335/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80920 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 64/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 AND ITA NO. 335/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 KARNAIL SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S/O SH.KEHRU RAM, WARD 4, # 172, SECTOR 20, KAITHAL. HUDA, KAITHAL. PAN: ATVPS6387C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.10.2014 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.64/CHD/2013 FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 19.11.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . 2. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.335/CHD/2011 FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KARNAL DATED 14.01.2011 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THIS APPEAL WAS DISMISSED I N DEFAULT BY I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.5.2011. THE ASSESSEE MOVED M.A.NO.20/CHD/2012. THE TRIBUNAL ON BEING SATISFI ED WITH THE REASONS 2 OF NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT BOTH THE APPEALS WERE TA KEN FOR HEARING ON 30.6.2014 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE AP PEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 7.10.2014. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING NON E APPEARED ON THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUT ING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS 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. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETUR NED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 3 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7 TH OCTOBER, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH