Sh. Atul Jindal, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 632/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9895 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 632/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI ATUL JINDAL, VS. THE A.C.I.T. PROP. USHA IMPEX, B-XX 2955, CIRCLE VI, GURDEV NAGAR, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: ACKPJ4006F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.06.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 24.4.2014 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REVEALED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED BEFORE HIM MAN Y TIMES AND DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE DID NO T MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DATES OF HEARI NG THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEA L DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBO DIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBU S JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPIN G 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. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CW AT 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. 5. 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 FR OM THE ASSESSEE. 3 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 A T PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FIL ING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 8 TH JUNE, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH