M/s Mala Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 433/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86168 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.433 TO 439 /CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11) MALA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., VS. THE A.C.I.T SCO 98-99, SUB CITY CENTRE, CENTRAL CIRCLE II SECTOR 34, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCN0099B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.02.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH : ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)(CENTRAL), GURGAON DATED 28.2.2014 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT EARLIER THE NOTICE WAS S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. THER EAFTER THE APPEALS WERE AGAIN TAKEN UP FOR HEARING AND THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POS T. THE REGISTERED POST DID NOT RETURN BACK TO THE OFFICE O F THE 2 TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, DEEMED TO BE SERVED UPON T HE ASSESSEE IN ORDINARY COURSE. BUT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. THEREF ORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPO N THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CW AT 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 ITR 4 95 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 A T PAGE 3 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FIL ING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH