Jammu Development Authority, Jammu V. The Income-tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 44/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 4420914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AMRJA0806F JAMMU DEVELOPMENT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AUTHORITY, RAILHEAD COMPLEX, TDS WARD, JAMMU JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU. 2. WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. 13 .02.2014, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EARLIER THE CAS E WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18.03.2013, BUT WAS ADJOURNED TO 04.06.2013 ON T HE REQUEST OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL. AGAIN ON 04.06.2013, THE CASE W AS ADJOURNED TO 13.06.2013, AND THEN ON 22.08.2013 ON ASSESSEES RE QUEST. ON 22.08.2013, THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 27.09.2 013, AND THEN TO 07.11.2013 AND AGAIN TO 01.01.2014. DESPITE AFFORDI NG SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE 2 I.T.A. NO. 44(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PRO SECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGIL ANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 (2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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 NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 3 I.T.A. NO. 44(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE AN APPLICATION, IF SO AD VISED, FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED F OR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAILHEA D COMPLEX, JAMMU 2. ITO, TDS WARD, JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER 4 I.T.A. NO. 44(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.