M/s Vision Commodities & Derivatives Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 786/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6617 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

, , ' IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJ AY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 786/CHD/2016 ! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S VISION COMMODITIES AND DERIVATIVES PVT LTD., 70, NEW LAJPAT NAGAR, LUDHIANA VS. '# THE ITO, WARD VI(3), LUDHIANA $ % ./PAN NO: AACCV2023R $&/ APPELLANT ()$& /RESPONDENT *+ , - /ASSESSEE BY : NONE , - / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR. DR . / , +0% /DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 12! , +0% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.01.2019 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PERU SING ITS APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEE P UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL-KNOWN DI CTUM, 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 CONSIDERED ITA NO. 786-C-2016- M/S VISION COMMODITIES & DERIVATIVES PVT LTD., LUDH IANA 2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 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 RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT 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 PA GE 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.01.2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! ' / SANJAY GARG) #$% / VICE PRESIDENT & ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23.1.2019 .. ITA NO. 786-C-2016- M/S VISION COMMODITIES & DERIVATIVES PVT LTD., LUDH IANA 3 3 , (+45 65!+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $& / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$& / THE RESPONDENT 3. . 7+ / CIT 4. . 7+ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 58 (+9 , 0 9 , :;<= / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. < >/ / GUARD FILE 3 . / BY ORDER, ? / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR