M/s Nazar Singh, Prop., V. CIT-I,

ITA 700/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63902 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 700/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S NAZAR SINGH, PROP., VS THE CIT-I, M/S GHUMAN POLUTRY FARM, LUDHIANA TEHSIL SAMRALA (PB.) PAN NO. AZJPS2448C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2012 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT- II, LUDHIANA DATED 22.5.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.8.2 012. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. T HE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. T HE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBU S JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING 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. 2 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE 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 ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477- 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 T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NO N PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- (T. R. SOOD) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : AUGUST, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT TRUE COPY 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 3