Lal Singh Bhati, JODHPUR V. ITO, JODHPUR

ITA 335/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7984 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBEAND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 335/JU/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI LAL SINGH BHATI, VS THE ITO, WARD 3(2), JODHPUR JODHPUR PAN NO. AVFPB0748Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R.KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2012 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 30.07.2012 OF THE CIT(A) JODHPUR. 2. THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.12.2012 B UT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.12.2012, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMEN T WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MAT TER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 (2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2 RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFE RENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21.12. 2012) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2012 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR 4