Smt POONAM SINGH, Agra V. ITO 1(3), Agra

ITA 389/AGR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0002 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: E PASS ROAD AGRA PAN AGAPS J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC)BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R ITA NO. 389 & 390/AGRA/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : 1999-2000 & 2000-01 POONAM SINGH, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 92, KALINDI PURAM, 1(3), AGRA. BYE PASS ROAD, AGRA. [PAN: AGAPS 0216J] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01.2016 ORDER BOTH THESE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 27.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND 2000-01. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE DATE OF HE ARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEALS. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBO DIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 48 0). THEIR LORDSHIPS OF ITA NO.389 & 390/AGRA/2015 2 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHA TTACHARGEE & 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 SAM E. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECIS IONS, WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECUT ION WITH LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE THAT HE MAY MOVE APPLICATION TO RECALL THI S ORDER ON SATISFYING THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.01.2016. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :29.01.2016 *AKS/- COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR