Salgaocar Mining Industries P. Ltd., Panaji V. Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, Margao

ITA 339/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 33924114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL L SONKAVDE LD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS . 339 & 363 /PNJ/201 3 (ASST. YEAR : 2006 - 07 & 2008 - 09) M/S. SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SALGAOCAR BHAVAN, ALTINHO, PANAJI, GOA. PAN : AABCS8862N (APPELLANT) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONAL L. SONKAVDE, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 25 / 03 /201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 / 03 /201 4 O R D E R PER P.K. BANSAL : 1. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 6.2.2014, 26.2.2014 AND 25.3.2014. ON 25.3.2014 THE LEARNED AR DID NOT APPEAR THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST A.D AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS DULY RECEIVED . DURING THE PREVIOUS HEARINGS, THE LEARNED AR EITHER DID NOT APPEAR OR HAS TAKEN ADJOURNMENTS. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS. 2. THE LAW ASSIST S THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MUL T IPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HO L KAR V. CWT, WE TREAT TH ESE APPEAL S AS NOT ADMITTED. 2 ITA NOS. 339 & 363/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2006 - 07 & 2008 - 09) 3. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR DEFAULT SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WILLING TO PURSUE THE APPEAL S . OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 (AP) AND 265 ITR 252. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEALS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/ 0 3/ 201 4 . S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 2 5 / 0 3 / 201 4 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ,