Sh. Shrichand Dembla, UDAIPUR V. DCI, UDAIPUR

ITA 344/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1963 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.344 TO 348/JODH/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2004-05 TO 2005-06 & 200 7-08 SH. SHRICHAND DEMBLA VS. THE DCI 21-22, NEW MADHAV VIHAR CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR UDAIPUR PAN NO. ABWPD7336F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 01/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/05/2017 ORDER PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY A COMMON ORD ER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WHEREAS IN ITA NO. 344 TO 346 IT IS TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DT. 03/08/2016 OF CIT(A)-2, UDAI PUR PERTAINING TO 2002-03, 2004-05 & 2005-06 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS CHALLENG ED WHEREIN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN UPHELD. IN ITA NO. 348/JODHPUR/2016, IT IS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDE R DT. 03/08/2016 OF CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR, PERTAINING TO 2007-08 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHIC H IS UNDER CHALLENGE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271AAA UPHELD BY T HE CIT(A)-2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT NOR AN Y REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT 2 HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 20/10/2016. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED DEFECT NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF THESE APPEALS ON 13/01/2017. TI LL DATE NO EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE APPEALS HAVE COME UP FOR HEARING ON 21/02/2017, 17/04/2017 AND AGAIN ON 01/05/2017. WHEREAS ON THE EARLIER TWO DATES THE BENCH WAS NOT FUNCTIONAL AND THE APPEALS GOT ADJOURNED. HOWEVER ON THE INSTANT DATE ALSO NO APPE ARANCE HAS BEEN PUT. NOTICE FOR THE PRESENT DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN ISS UED ON 20/04/2017 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF THE MEMO OF A PPEAL FILED WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED AS UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ADJOUR NING THE APPEALS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN EXECUTED ANY POWER OF ATT ORNEY TO REPRESENT OR CURE THE DEFECT WOULD BE A MEANINGLESS EXERCISE RESULTIN G IN WASTE OF GOVERNMENT TIME AND MACHINERY AS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIO US IN PURSUING THE APPEALS FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDI A LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P. ) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISS ED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO ADDRESS THE DEFECT POI NTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY, IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RE CALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 03/05/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 3 DATED : 03/05/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR