Shri Hansraj Bahati, JODHPUR V. DCIT, JODHPUR

ITA 414/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2922 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 414/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SHRI HANSRAJ BAHATI VS. THE DY.C.I.T PROP. THAR HANDICRAFTS CIRCLE - 3 H 4, MILKMAN COLONY JODHPUR JODHPUR PAN NO: AANPB 4300 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2013 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JODHPUR DATED 06.04.2010. 2. EARLIER, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19. 9.2012 BUT WAS ADJOURNED. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEAR ING AGAIN FOR TODAY I.E. 08.01.2013. HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE 2 ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RI GHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT 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 AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 08-01-2013. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH JANUARY, 2013 VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR