Sh. Amit Sharma, Kaithal V. ITO, Kaithal

ITA 815/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 81521514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES SMC CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 815/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI AMIT SHARMA, VS THE ITO, WARD-4, S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR, KAITHAL C/O M/S AMIT ENGG. WORKS, AMARGARH GAMRI, KAITHAL PAN NO. AWZPS5289E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 26.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.06.2012 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), KARNAL DATED 27.5.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.06. 2012. THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 26.06.2012 WAS SENT TO ASSES SEE BY RPAD. THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK WITH TH E POSTAL AUTHORITIES REMARKS ADDRESS IS INCOMPLETE. IT IS OBSERVED TH AT NOTICE OF HEARING HAS BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN F ORM NO.36. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY INTIMATION TO THIS OFFICE RE GARDING CHANGE OF ADDRESS, 2 IF ANY. IT IS NOTICED THAT ON 22.3.2012, SHRI JAS PAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TODA Y NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NO T THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THE PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED AS WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 I TD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V CWAT 223 ITR 480 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V B.N. BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477- 78 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED (SUPRA), I DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH JUNE, 2012. SD/- (H.L.KARWA) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 26 TH JUNE, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR