M/s Canara Bank, Panchkula V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

ITA 754/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9804 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 754/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CANARA BANK, VS THE ITO (TDS), PANCHKULA PANCHKULA PAN NO. RTKCO1137A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 01.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.04.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.06.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), PANCHKULA. 2. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12 /11/2014 BUT THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON THAT DAY. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS F IXED FOR 01.4.2015 FOR WHICH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WELL IN TIME. HOWEVER, ON 01.04.2015 I.E. TODAY, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDE RED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT T HIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 2 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 01.04.2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : IST APRIL, 2015 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3