Gigabyte Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai V. Asst. Commissioner of Income tax Cir. 1, Margao

ITA 429/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9253 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 429/PNJ/2013 : (A.YS - 2006 - 07) GIGABYTE TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., B - 411, BSEL TECH PARK, SECTOR 30A, VASHI, MAHARASHTRA 400 705 ( APPELLANT) PAN : AABCD7556N VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO, GOA. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SAUMYENDRA SINGH TOMER, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : B. BALA KRISHNA, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 12/02/2015 DATE OF ORDER : 12/02/2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.3.2014, 3.6.2014, 2.9.2014 AND 20.11.2014 AND ON ALL THE OCCASIONS THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSE E TO A DATE CONVENIENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. 12.2.2015. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT VIDE APPLICATION DT. 12.2.2015. IN THE SAID APPLICATION NO PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS B EEN GIVEN FOR GRANT OF ADJOURNMENT EXCEPT THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ON 13.2.2015. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TIME AND AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS UNDER ONE PRETEXT OR ANOTHER THOUGH T HE APPEAL HAS BEEN ADJOURNED ON DATES CONVENIENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS TAKING THE MATTER CASUALLY AND IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. 2 ITA NO. 429/PNJ/2013 (A.Y : 2006 - 07) 2. THE LAW ASSIST S THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TA X (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT, WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THEREFORE, FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR DEFAULT SINCE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WILLING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 (AP) AND 265 IT R 252. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 2 /0 2 /2015 . S D / - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 1 2 /0 2 /2015 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER,