M/s KAMLA GLASS WORKS, Firozabad V. ITO WARD 5(2), Firozabad

ITA 431/AGR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9976 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.431/AG/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 M/S KAMLA GLASS WORKS, VS. THE ITO KATRA SUNARAN, WARD5(2),FIROZABAD STATION ROAD FIROZABAD PAN NO. AABFK1168N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. WASEEM ARSHAD DATE OF HEARING : 05/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/02/2016 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/03/2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, AGRA. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27 /10/2015 BUT SINCE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DATE A FRESH NOT ICE FIXING THE HEARING ON 05.02.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS RETURNED UNDELIVERED WITH THE COMMENT THAT NO GLASS COMPANY EXISTED ON THIS ADDRESS. SINCE NO OTHER ADDRESS HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOS E WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIEN TIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING I N 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 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 RETU RNED 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 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PERSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 05/02/2016 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR