Sukhraman Kaur, Doraha V. Assessing Officer, Khanna

ITA 747/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6144 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AHKILESH GUPTA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.747/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SUKHRAMAN KAUR, VS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, C/O LITTLE BEE IMPEX, KHANNA (PUNJAB) DORAHA PAN NO. ALOPK2746E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AHKILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 05.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.06.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2012 OF CIT (APPEALS)-II. LUDHIANA. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09 .10.2012 BUT AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOU RNED TO 27.12.2012. THEREAFTER, TIME AND AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED E ITHER AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OR THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCT ION ON THAT DATE. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 05.06.2014 FOR WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WELL IN TIME. HOWEVER, ON 05.06.2014 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MAT TER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS . THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBU S JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE 2 OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.06.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 9 TH JUNE, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3