Smt. Geeta Devi Surana, RAJSAMAND V. DCIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 589/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7895 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R KOKANI

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 ITA NO. 589/JU/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SMT GEETA DEVI SURANA, VS THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCL E-2, C/O SHRI BHERU LAL SURANA UDAIPUR RAJSAMAND PAN NO. AFBPS 9277 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 13.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2012 ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 1.10.2010 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), JAIPUR . 2. EARLIER, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 5.7 .2012 BUT WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. ON 13 .9.2012. HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 13.9.2012, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNME NT 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 PRINCIPLE IS EMBO DIED 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 APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (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 48 0) 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 REFE RENCE, 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 UNAN SWERED 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 TH E 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 13.09. 2012 ) SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR