Tarjinder Kumar Bansal, Panchkula V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 460/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6744 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 460/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. TARJINDER KUMAR BANSAL, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, H.NO. 253, SECTOR 7, CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA PAN NO. AAWPB3014H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, [HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], GURGAON DATED 30.12.2016 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. INITIALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 9.5.2017 BUT TH E BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THE DAY AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 9.8.2 017. ON 9.8.2017, NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR 17.10.2017. AGAIN TO TODAY, I.E. 17.10.2017, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYIN G THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT 2 WHOLLY INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL, THEREFORE , APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBO DIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 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, HONBLE 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 T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.10.2017 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 17.10.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR