M/S GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIMITED , JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -3, JALANDHAR

ITA 668/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7077 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN JINDAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.667/ASR./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 ITA NO.668/ASR./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 ITA NO.669/ASR./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012-13 M/S GRAND LILLY MOTELS LTD., 4, MODEL TOWN, JALANDHAR VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCG4527E ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. LALIT MOHAN JINDAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.01.2019 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 04.05.2017 AND 11.05.2017 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHA R FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 20.12.2018. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHE R ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIER ALSO, WHENEVER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESS EE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NOS.667 TO 669/ASR./2017 GRAND LILLY MOTELS LTD. 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING TH E 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 THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITT ED. 4. 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 REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. 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. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSE E IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION A S PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 ITA NOS.667 TO 669/ASR./2017 GRAND LILLY MOTELS LTD. 3 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 15/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR