Sh. Janak Raj S/o. Sh. Murari Lal Prop., Sri Muktsar Sahib V. The Income-tax Officer, Muktsar

ITA 744/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7642 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

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. 744(Asr)/2013 Assessment year: 2006-07 PAN: AAMPR5675A Janak Raj, son of Sh. Murari Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Murari Lal Janak Raj, Ward-II(2), Muktsar Gali Hakima, Sri Muktsar Sahib (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. Tarsem Lal, DR Date of hearing: 03.04.2014 Date of pronouncement: 03.04.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order of learned CIT(A), Bathinda, dated 02.09.2013, passed for the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Notice of hearing for today i.e. 03.04.2014 was issued to the assessee by RPAD in spite of this neither the assessee nor his authorized representative appeared nor filed any application for adjournment. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the mat ter in dispute. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. The principle 2 I.T.A. No. 744(Asr)/2013 Assessment year: 2006-07 is e mbodied as well known dictu m, ‘VIGILANTIB US ET NON DORM IENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as were c onsidered in 38 ITD 320 (Del) in the case of CIT v Multiplan India Ltd., we t reat this appeal as unad mitted. 3. Si milar view has been taken by Hon'ble M.P. Hig h Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v C WAT 223 ITR 480 wher ein 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.” 4. Si milarl y, Hon'ble Punjab & Har yana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills Vs CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 returned the reference unanswered since the assessee re mained absent and there was not any assistance fro m the assessee. 5. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supre me Court in the case of CIT v B. N. B hattarchargee And Another 118 ITR 461 at page 477-78 held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the me mo of appeal but effectively pursuing the sa me . 3 I.T.A. No. 744(Asr)/2013 Assessment year: 2006-07 6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dis miss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution with the liberty that the assessee ma y file an application, if so advised, for recalling of this order under the law. 7. In the result, the present appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 3 rd April, 2014 Sd/./- Sd/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 3 rd April, 2014 /RK/ Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee: Janak Raj, son of Sh. Murari Lal Prop. M/s Murari Lal Janak Raj, Gali Hakima, Sri Muktsar Sahib 2. ITO, Ward-II(2), Muktsar 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.