Vinod Kumar Singhal, JODHPUR V. ACIT, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 66/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82922 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 61 / J ODH / 20 1 4 ( A . Y . 200 9 - 1 0 ) SHRI VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL , VS. CIT, BIKANER. PROP. M/S. SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES , 26, NEW DHAN MANDI , SADULSAHAR, DIST. SRIGANGANAR. PAN NO. ADUPS 0895 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 66/JODH/2014 ( A . Y . 2010 - 11 ) SHRI VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL, VS. A CIT, PROP. M/S. SHIV SHAKTI CIRCLE - SRIGANGANAGAR, ENTERPRISES, 26, SRIGANGANAGAR. NEW DHAN MANDI, SADULSAHAR, DIST. SRIGANGANAR. PAN NO. ADUPS 0895 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : NONE DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI N.A. JOSHI , DR DAT E OF H EARING : 1 3 . 0 8 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 3 . 0 8 . 201 4 2 ORDER PER BENCH BOTH THE ABOVE APPEAL S FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT/CIT(A) , BIKANER DATED 08 / 01 / 2014 DATED 23/12/2013 F OR A.Y S. 200 9 - 1 0 & 201 0 - 11 RESPECTIVELY . 2. TH ESE CASE S W ERE FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY, I.E. ON 13 . 08 .201 4 . HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE 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 CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT TH ESE APPEAL S AS UN - ADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 3 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 REM AINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT 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 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF A PPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE SE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 .08.2014 ) S D/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 4 V R / - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5 . THE DR BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, JODHPUR.