Gopalkrishna D Hebbar, Uttarakannada V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 829/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60719 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA CITIDR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.829/BANG/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : N.A. M/S. PEOPLE CHARITY FUND, 27/1, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, BANGALORE. PAN : AAATP 9918N VS. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 17(2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. AMBASTHA, CIT-I(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.05.2012 O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2011 OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALO RE. 2. THIS CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING AND THE ASSESSE E SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT BY STATING IN THE APPLICATION DATED 25. 04.2012 AS UNDER:- PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT THE, ABOVE APPEAL(S) ARE (IS) POSTED FOR HEARING ON 3-5-2012 BEFORE THE BENCH AND THE UNDERSIGNED IS INSTRUCTED TO APPEAR IN THE MATTER. AS THE UNDERSIGNED WILL BE PERSONALLY INCONVENIENCE D, UNABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH AND FURTHER HAS TO COLLECT BACK ITA NO.829/BANG/2011 PAGE 2 OF 4 RECORDS FROM THE PETITIONERS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR OBTAINING ADDITIONAL DETAILS, IT IS PRAYED UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE HEARING IN THE ABOVE MATTER MAY BE ADJOURNED FOR SIX WEEKS AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED IN THIS REGARD IS VERY MUC H REGRETTED. DATED AT CHENNAI THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012 SD/- COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S) 3. EARLIER ALSO, WHENEVER THIS CASE WAS FIXED I.E., ON 16.01.2012, 14.03.2012 AND 03.04.2012 ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. LAST TIME I.E., ON 03.04.2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPERBOOK CONTAINI NG 39 PAGES AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE REQUEST OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS ACCEPTED AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON TODAY, HOWEVE R, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN THE AFORESAID APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT THAT HE WOULD BE PERSONALLY INCONVENIENCED, IS UNABLE TO AP PEAR AND THAT HE HAS TO COLLECT BACK RECORDS FROM THE PETITIONERS C.A. HO WEVER, WHEN THE PAPERBOOK WAS FILED, NOTHING WAS INDICATED THAT ANY OTHER MATERIAL/DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED OR FUR NISHED. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. WE THEREFORE REJECT THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJOURNMENT. 4. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING TH E FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITT ED. ITA NO.829/BANG/2011 PAGE 3 OF 4 5. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 6. SIMILARLY, HONBLE 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. 7. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 8. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NO N-PROSECUTION. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE GEORGE K. ) ( N.K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 3 RD MAY , 2012. DS/- ITA NO.829/BANG/2011 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.