Institute of Eduction Cultural Society, Agra V. CIT-1, Agra

ITA 45/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7040 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIA K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: APPLICATION REJECTED

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 45 & 46/AGRA/2010 (SEC. 80G(5)(VI) & 12-AA) INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION CULTURAL SOCIETY, VS. COMM ISSIONER OF SHYAM HOTEL, KIDWAI PARK, INCOME-TAX-I, AGRA. ST. JOHNS CROSSING, AGRA. (PAN : AAATI 7190 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : APPLICATION REJECTED FOR RESPONDENT : SHRIA.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. : THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDERS DATED 07.01.10 AND 06.01.10 OF CIT I, AGRA PASSED U/S. 80G(5)(VI) AN D SEC. 12-AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AN UNDATED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FIL ED WHICH IS SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER THE NAME OF THE OFFICE BEARER NO R THE NAME AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE APPLICATION IS APPARENT FROM THE SIGNATURE. THE APPLICATION CAN BE SIGNED BY THE PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN. WE ALS O NOTED THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 20.04.11, THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY ON THE REQUEST OF SHRI NIKHIL AGARWAL ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE APPLICATION NO PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN AS TO WHO IS FEELING ILL AND TO WHOM THE DOCTOR HAS SUGGESTED TO TAKE REST, AS THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED IN THE NAME OF THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION CULTURAL SOCIETY . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY PLAUSIBLE REASON TO ADJOURN THE CASE AND THUS, THE ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION STANDS DISMISSED. WE ALSO NOTED 2 THAT FORM NO. 36 IN THESE APPEALS IS ALSO DEFECTIVE AND HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED OR VERIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION CULTURAL SOCIETY, I.E ., THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE , THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP O VER THEM. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SU BVENIUNT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RU LE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, AS WELL AS THE DECISIONS BY T HE TRIBUNAL, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND BY THE HIGHER COURTS, AS IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE TREAT THE ASSESSEES APPEALS AS UN- ADMITTED, AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.05.2011. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 RD MAY, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY