M/s Subhash Rice Mills, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 726/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73436 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 726/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S SUBHASH RICE MILLS, VS THE ITO, WARD-3, KAITH AL SADHU MANDI CAMPT AT KURUKSHETRA KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. AAWFS4699H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 30.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.01.2014 APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 1.03.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) KARNAL. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE VIDE ORDER DATED 5.10.2012. AGAINST THAT ORDER ASSESSEE FILE D A MISC. APPLICATION AND THE ORDER WAS RECALLED IN MISC. APPLICATION NO. 14/CHD/ 2013 AND HEARING WAS FIXED ON 24.9.2013. ON THAT DATE, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNC TION. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE (REGD A.D) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO. HOWEVER, NOTICE HAS BEEN RET URNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH A COMMENT THAT ADDRESS IS NOT COMPLETE. 2 SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OTHER ADDRESS, THEREFORE, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PR OSECUTION. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, V IGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS 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 IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 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 REFERENCE, 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 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NO T 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. 3 7. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.01.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 30 TH JANUARY, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH