Shri Subhash Chandra Mewara, BHILWARA V. ITO, BHILWARA

ITA 444/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9650 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 444 /JODH/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 09 - 10 SHRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA MEWARA VS. THE ITO MANDAKINI MARG, UDAI PALACE, WARD - 3 BIJOLIYA, BHILWARA BHILWARA PAN NO. AGLPM4353M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 01 /0 3 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/03/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING TH E CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 25 /0 6 /201 4 OF LD. CIT(A) , AJMER PERTAINING TO 2009 - 10, ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS . HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER T HR ICE . THE POSITION REMAIN TH E SAME IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO AS NEITHER ANY ONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 27/08/2014 AND HAS C O ME UP FOR HEARING ON MORE THAN HALF A DOZEN TIME S. E XCEPT FOR 21/07/2016 ON EACH OF THE OTHER DATES WHEN THE B ENCH WAS FUNCTIONING FROM 08/03/2016 TO THE PRESENT DATE IT HAS BEEN ADJOURNED AS THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED OR ON ITS REQUEST AT TIMES . ACCORDINGLY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THO SE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL, T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN L I MIN I . 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO P RAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 02/03/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: AG COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT