M/s. Sai Kirpa Waxing Plant, Abohar V. The Income-tax Officer, Abohar

ITA 509/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 50920914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 509 & 510(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 PAN: AAOFM5750B M/S SAI KIRPA WAXING PLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SITTO ROAD, ABOHAR WARD-II(3), ABOHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 28.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.01.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS AG AINST THE CONSOLIDATED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.07.2011 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. THE AFORESAID TWO APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING BE FORE THIS BENCH LAST TIME ON 11.12.2013, ON WHICH DATE, THE P RESENT APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 28.01.2014 AS LAST OPPORTU NITY FOR HEARING, BEING OLD MATTERS OF 2011. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS DULY N OTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN SPITE OF THE SAME, NEI THER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS 2 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY AP PLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN V IEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADM ITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 3 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY TO TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE APPLICATION, IF SO ADVIS ED, FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH JANUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S SAI KIRPA WAXING PLANT, SITTO RO AD, ABOHAR 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(3), ABOHAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER 4 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.