Smt. Kuldeep Kaur Ahuja, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 543/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90207 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 543/CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SMT.KULDEEP KAUR AHUJA, VS. THE D.C.I.T., PROP. M/S AHUJA ENTERPRISES, CIRCLE- V, 622, INDUSTRIAL AREA B, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ABEPK7230M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR.AMARVEER SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.07.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 12.3.2013 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS ADJOUR NED ON SEVERAL DATES ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. EVEN ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE A PPEAL WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE 2 ASSESSEE FOR 1.7.2015. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSE D. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPO N THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIG H 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 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 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 I TR 461 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST JULY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH