IMC of ITI, V. The Commissioner of Income tax, Bathinda

ITA 44/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7735 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LAXMAN SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.44(ASR)/2011 PAN:AAAA1383IL THE IMC OF ITI, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GIDDERBAHA. BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. LAXMAN SINGH, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING :26/04/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:26/04/2012 ORDER PER BENCH; THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA D ATED 1.12.2010 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26 TH APRIL, 2012. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED AD P OST ON 27.03.2012 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FROM 36, COL.10. FURTHER, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY FOUR DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN FILED ANY ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION. 2 THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOS E WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOW N DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD; 38-ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 -ITR-480, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. WE ORDER ACC ORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:IMC OF IT, GIDDERBAHA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA. 3. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. TRUE COPY