Sh. Shamsher Jang Bahadur, Hoshiarpur V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Jalandhar

ITA 488/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5718 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.488(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 PAN :ABWPB7485M SH. SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR, VS. THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, HOSHIARPUR. CENTRAL CIR.1, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA, DATED 20.08.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO IN SH ORT THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21ST J UNE, 2010. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED AD POST ON 01.06.2011. THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED WIT H THE REMARKS LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS RETURNED TO SENDER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE REVISE FORM NO.36 CONTAINING NEW ADDRESS, AS CONTEMPLATED IN TH E PRACTICE NOTE DATED 22 ND FEB.,2011 ISSUED WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE HONBL E PRESIDENT. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTION OF THE PRESENT 2 APPEAL AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED ON TH IS GROUND ITSELF. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SL EEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIG ILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACT S AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DE LHI BENCH, IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD; 38-ITD-320 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223-ITR-480, THE APPEAL IS DISMISS ED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE STANDS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21ST JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21ST JUNE, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. SHAMSHER JANG BAHADUR, HOSHIARPUR . 2. THE DCIT, CC-1, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A)-1 LUDHIANA. 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR. 3