Dharam Samrat Swami Karpatriji Maharaj Public Welfare Trust, NOKHA V. CIT (Exemption), JAIPUR

ITA 427/JODH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1957 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA R JAIN
• 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 NO.427/JODH/2016 UNDER SECTION 12AA(1)(B) DHARAM SAMRAT SWAMI VS. CIT(EXEMPTION) KARPATRIJI MAHARAJ PUBLIC JAIPUR WELFARE TRUST OPPOSITE SHAKUNTALA BHAWAN NOKHA PAN NO. AACTD2680F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. ALKA R. JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/05/2017 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 09/11/2016 OF CIT(EXEM PTION), JAIPUR. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO TH E POSITION REMAINED SAME. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT NOTICE SENT TO THE ADDRESS INDICATED IN FORM NO. 36 I.E; THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED IN COLUMN NO. 10 HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH COMMENT ANUPASTHIT (NOT PRESENT). ACCORDINGLY IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE NOTICE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS UNDELIVERED, NO PURPOSE WOULD BE SE RVED BY GRANTING AN 2 ADJOURNMENT. NO CHANGE OF ADDRESS HAS BEEN INDICATE D BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE AS SESSEE MAY NOT BE SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN IND IA 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 . THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 3. 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 IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PR AY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 04/05/2017 IN THE OPEN C OURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE