M/s Two India Pvt. Ltd., Mohali V. DY. CIT, Mohali

ITA 394/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80962 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 394 & 395/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S Q TWO INDIA PVT LTD., VS THE DCIT, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S QUARK INDIA CIRCLE 6(1), M OHALI PRIVATE LTD), MOHALI PAN NO. AAACQ332Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.10.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. INITIALLY, THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.04.2014 BUT WERE ADJOURNED TO 13.10.2014 AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNS EL OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON TODAY I.E 13.10.2014 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDE RED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT T HE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 2 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 HEARING 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 REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NO T ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.10.2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH OCTOBER, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3