M/s. Pratap Narain & Others, V. DCIT,

ITA 81/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9130 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANADI VERMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT I.T.A.NO.81(LKW.)/2011 A.Y. :2004-05 M/S. PRATAP NARAIN & OTHERS, VS. THE DY.CIT, VIJAI LUXMI NAGAR, SITAPUR. SITAPUR. PAN AAAAP2428C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANADI VERMA SR. D.R. O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 22.10.2010 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN W ITHDRAWING THE CREDIT OF PREPAID TAXES (TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE) A ND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY U/S 143(1 )/154 IS ILLEGAL. 3. THAT THE FINDINGS OF LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE B AD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND/S THAT MAY BE TAKEN LATER WITH THE KIND PERMISSION OF THE BENCH. 2 3. THE ABOVE NOTED APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING O N 3.3.2011. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY R.P.A.D. AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.36, WHICH WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNO WN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED THE REGISTRY ABOUT ANY CHANGE IN THE A DDRESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING T HE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) O F THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320(DEL.) IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., I TREAT THE APPEAL AS UNADM ITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3. 3.2011. SD. (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT MARCH 3RD, 2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.