Mrs. Vijaya Kadlabju, Jammu V. The Income tax Officer, Jammu

ITA 722/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 72220914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 722 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 PAN: ADNPK4343E MRS. VIJAYA KADLABJU, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.NO. 90, SECTOR-III, WARD -1(3), JAMMU TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR DATE OF HEARING: 25.03.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.03.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, DATED 07.10.2013, PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 25.03.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD IN SPITE OF THIS NEITHER THE ASSES SEE NOR HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNMENT. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. T HE PRINCIPLE 2 IS EMBODIED AS WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS 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 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R V CWAT 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 NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 I TR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSE E REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE A SSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 46 1 AT PAGE 477-78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MER E FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAM E. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE AN APPLICATION, IF SO ADVISED, FOR RECALLI NG OF THIS ORDER UNDER THE LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DISMISSED F OR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MARCH, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH MARCH, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: MRS. VIJAYA KADLABJU, H.NO. 90, SEC TOR-III, TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU 2. ITO, WARD -1(3), JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.