Smt SHUBHANGI KHANDELWAL, Agra V. ITO WARD 2(2), Agra

ITA 398/AGR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9974 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R AND MRS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER ITA NO. 398/AGRA/2015 ASSTT. YEAR : 1999-2000 SMT. SUBHANGI KHANDELWAL, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 45, JANTA COLONY, SHAHGANJ, 2(4), AGRA. AGRA [PAN: ACZPK 6808P] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 27.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THEREFORE, IT APPE ARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE LAW ASSIS TS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JUR A SUB VENIUNT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA P RADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (22 3 ITR 480). THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ITA NO.398/AGRA/2015 2 ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) HELD THAT TH E APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY P URSUING THE SAME. THUS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAM E FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE THAT HE MAY MOVE APPLICATI ON TO RECALL THIS ORDER ON SATISFYING THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE W HICH PREVENTED HIM TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5 TH FEBRUARY, 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