Sukhm Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Chandigarh V. ITO, Ropar

ITA 620/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9795 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 620 & 621/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/S SUKHM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., VS. THE ITO, WA RD 2(2) CHANDIGARH ROPAR PAN NO. AAJCS5706M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.07.2016 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH DATED 30.3.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007- 08 AND 2009-10. 2. ON THE LAST DAY OF HEARING ON 18.4.2016, BOTH TH E APPEALS ALONG WITH ITA NO. 638/CHD/2015 WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF L D. DR TO 13.7.2016. THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE T IME OF ADJOURNMENT OF APPEALS. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 13.7.2016, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEALS. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, N OT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET 2 NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING T HE 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 CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMI TTED. 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 THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.07.2016 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH JULY, 2016 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR