Ms. Suvira Anand, Ambala Cantt. V. CIT II, Chandigarh

ITA 575/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80897 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMA RVEER SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 575/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 MS. SUVIRA ANAND, VS. THE CIT-II, AMBALA CANTT. CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABAPP6846Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR AMARVEER SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.09.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-II, CHANDIGARH . 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13 .08.2013 BUT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.10.2013. ON 10.10.2013 THE BENCH D ID NOT FUNCTION AND THEREAFTER, TIME AND AGAIN THE CASE WAS FIXED BUT A DJOURNED AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DATE OR ADJOURNMENT HAVE BEEN REQU ESTED BY THE COUNSELS.. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 25.09.2014 FOR WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WELL IN TIME. HOWEVER, ON 25. 09.2014 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEP ING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE 2 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 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 HOLKAR 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 NOT 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 THERE WAS NO T 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 APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.09.2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3