Goel Investments, Ltd., Bareilly V. DCIT,Rg.I, Bareilly

ITA 454/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70518 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 454 /LKW/ 20 1 1 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008 - 2009 M/S GOEL INVESTMENTS LIMITED, VS. DY. C.I.T., 13, CIVIL LINES, RANGE - 1, BAREILLY. BAREILLY. PAN:AAACG5266F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. K. RAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06 /0 8 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :08/08/2013 ORDER PER S. V. MEHROTRA: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/05/2011 OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS BUT NONE APPEARED. AGAIN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 6 TH AUGUST, 2013 FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ON RECORD. HOWEVER, INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. WE, THERE FORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JU RA SUB VENIUNT'. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF 2 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VI EW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 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 ST EPS 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 IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 /08/2013 ) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (S. V. MEHROTRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 08/08/2013 *C.L.SINGH 3 COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR