M. Harish, Bangalore V. ACIT(OSD), Bangalore

ITA 63/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 6321114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUMAR AJEET

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.63(BANG)/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI M.HARISH, NO.5/6, 1 ST FLOOR, 80 FT. ROAD, KATRIGUPPA, BSK 3 RD STAGE, BANGALORE-85. PAN NO.AIXPM6861E VS. APPELLANT ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), RANGE-4, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KUMAR AJEET. DATE OF HEARING: 18-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18-10-2011 O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-9-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-II, BANGALORE. 2. DURING THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTICE WHICH WAS EAR LIER SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED W ITH THE REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITY DOOR LOCKED, THER EAFTER, THE DEPARTMENT WAS DIRECTED TO SERVE THE NOTICE. IN SP ITE OF THAT, ITA 63(BANG)/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 NOBODY TURNED UP WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARI NG. EVEN NO ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE APPEARS T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UP ON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE 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 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 T AKING 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 I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FR OM THE ASSESSEE. ITA 63(BANG)/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FI LING 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 THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OCTOBER,2011 SD/- SD/- (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N.K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE: DATED : 18 TH OCTOBER, 2011 EKS COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE