Sh. Dharambir, Ludhiana V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Jalandhar

ITA 6/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 620914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.L. KARWA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. D.K. SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 06(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1991-92 SH. DHARAMBIR VS. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, S/O SH. CHAMAN LAL, RANGE-IV, JALANDHAR. LUDHIANA. PAN:AGRPB9963C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 27.10.2010, PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT, THE ACT), RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991- 92. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.12. 2011. NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF 2 NOTICE BY RPAD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED AN Y APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING. THUS, IT IS PRESUM ED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. T HE 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 VIEW THE PROVISIONS 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. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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 I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 ITR 4 95 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 A T PAGE 3 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FIL ING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 12 TH DECEMBER, 2011 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. DHARAMBIR, LUDHIANA. 2. THE DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, R-IV, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.