M/s. Narinder Kumar Gupta, Muktsar V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hoshiarpur

ITA 48/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0671 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TARSEM LA

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.48(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 PAN :ARAPS6884K SH. NAVEEN SHARMA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 73, BHARAT NAGAR, WARD 4(3), AMRITSAR. AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY:SH. TARSEM LA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 18/03/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:18/03/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 12.11.2012 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FOR TODAY I.E. 18.03.2013, WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERE D WITH THE REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITY LEFT - RTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED HIS NEW ADDRESS ON WHICH THE NOTICE COULD BE SERVED. THEREF ORE, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED, IF THE NOTICE IS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE TIME AND AGAIN AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.10. 2 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PR ESENT APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. THE L AW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENT IBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH, IN THE CASE O F C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD; 38-ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONB LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223-ITR-480, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IF SO ADVISED, FOR RECALL OF THIS ORDE R, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18TH MARCH, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.NAVEEN SHARMA, AMRITSAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 4(3), ASR. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY 3