Ganna Vikas Parishad, Bareilly V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), Bareilly

ITA 728/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2544 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. N .S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 728/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD SEMIKHERA, BHOJIPURA B AREILLY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) BAREILLY T AN /PAN : AAKFG6618G (APP ELL A NT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 10 10 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 10 201 8 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , A .M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), BAREILLY DATED 18/8/2017. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 10/10 /2018, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT ON EARLIER OCCASIO NS I.E. ON 1/9/2018 AND 15/9/2018 ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL ISSUED NOTICE DATED 6/9/2018 FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 10/10/2018 POINTING OUT THE DEFECT OF DELAY OF 298 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL AND NOT FURNISHING THE ORIGINAL CHALLAN OF APPEAL FEE , BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER REMOVED THE DEFECTS NOR APPEARED ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING . IT SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE LAW AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILA NT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. ITA NO.728/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM ' VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT '. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: - 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC). 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR NON - PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(4) BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY] [ N.S. SAINI ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST OCTO BER , 201 8 JJ: 1010 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR