M/s. Shri Rajendra Kumar Pokharna, UDAIPUR V. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

ITA 580/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78198 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 580 /JODH /201 3 [ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 08 ] M/S. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR POKHARNA , VS ITO (TDS) , PROP. PR AKASH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA, UDAIPUR. C/O A.I. MEHTA, 6 - B, BAPU BAZAR , UDAIPUR. PAN NO. ABWPP 0958 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21 . 05 .20 1 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 09 . 0 6 .201 4 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J .M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A) , UDAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 . 2. T HIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. ON 21 . 05 .201 4 . HOWE VER, NOBODY WAS PRESEN T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRI NCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA 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. SIMILA RLY, 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 NOT 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 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT 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, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 . 0 6 .201 4 ) SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) AC COUNTANT MEMER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 9 TH JUNE , 201 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR