Pooja Anant Thakur, Panaji V. Commissioner of Income tax, Panaji

ITA 71/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4316 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT RAJ SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA N O . 70 /PNJ/201 3 : (ASST. YEAR - 2008 - 09 ) ANANT JANARDHAN THAKUR H. NO. 725, PLOT NO. E - 1, LA CAMPALA, MIRAMAR, PANAJI, GOA. (APPELLANT) PAN : ABCPT5596M VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI (RESPONDENT) ITA N O . 71 /PNJ/201 3 : (ASST. YEAR - 2008 - 09 ) POOJA ANANT THAKUR H. NO. 725, PLOT NO. E - 1, LA CAMPALA, MIRAMAR, PANAJI, GOA. (APPELLANT) PAN : ABMPT2689R VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT S BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMRIT RAJ SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 26 / 06 /2013 DATE OF ORDER : 26 / 06 /2013 O R D E R PER BENCH : 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL S HA VE BEEN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE S AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT DT. 13.2.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 . THE ABOVE CASE S W ERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.6.2013. NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE APPELLANT S BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. 2. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL - KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND 2 ITA NOS. 70 & 71/PNJ/2013 (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AS ALSO IN 223 ITR 480 (M.P) IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOKAR V. CWT, WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS NOT ADMITTED. 3. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF 38 ITD 320 READ WITH RULE 24 & 25 WITH 19 OF THE ITA RULES, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR DEFAUL T SINCE WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE S ARE NOT WILLING TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL S . OUR VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF 255 ITR 467 (AP) AND 265 ITR 252. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE A SSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 / 0 6/ 2013. SD/ - (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 26 / 0 6/ 2013 *SSL* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, PANAJI, GOA