Shri Anoop Kumar Verma, Lakhimpur-Kheri V. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Lakhimpur-Kheri

ITA 601/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1782 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K VISHWAKARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 601/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 SHRI ANOOP KUMAR VERMA 838, VILL. & POST MA QSOODPUR LAKHIMPUR KHERI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 3(4) LAKHIMPUR KHERI T AN /PAN : AEVPV1353A (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R. K. VISHWAKARMA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 09 08 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 08 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), BAREILLY, DATED 17/6/2016. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 09/08/2018. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD, BUT THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM ' VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT '. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, ITA NO.601/LKW/2016 PAGE 2 OF 2 HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC). 2 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 / 0 8 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ T.S. KAPOOR ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST AUGUST , 201 8 JJ: 2108 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLA NT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR