Shri Pratap M. Swami, Kolhapur V. I.T.O. Ward 1(2) Kolhapur, Kolhapur

ITA 830/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3264 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANTKUMAR C LEUVA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBE R SR.NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APEPLALNT RESPONDENT 1. 830/PN/2010 2002-03 SHRI PRATAP M. SWAMI, 383-K-1 SWAMI MALA, 13 TH LANE RAJARAMPURI, KOLHAPUR PAN APJPS6441P I.T.O. WARD 1(2) KOLHAPUR 2. 831/PN/2010 2002-03 SHRI PRAKASH M. SWAMI SAME AS ABOVE PAN APJPS 6429K -DO- 3. 832/PN/2010 2002-03 UDAY M. SWAMI SAME AS ABOVE PAN AOOPS2459F -DO- 4. 833/PN/2010 2002-03 SMT SOLUCHANA M. SWAMI SAME AS ABOVE PAN AQTPS 3742 C -DO- APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HEMANTKUMAR C. LEUVA ORDER ALL THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME GROUP OF ASSESSES. SO THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 830 TO 833/PN/09 SWAMI GROUP A.Y. 2002-03 , 2 2. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY DIFFERENT ASS ESSES AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IDENTICALLY D ATED 29- 3-2010 ON THE POINT OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2002-03. 3. THESE CASES WERE ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 3-9- 2010. SINCE NOBODY ATTENDED ON THE SPECIFIED DATE, THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED AND POSTED FOR HEARING ON 27 -9- 2010 FOR WHICH A NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSES BY REGD. POST . THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. SO, IT IS PRESUMED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME. HOWEVER, WHEN THE C ASES WERE CALLED UP FOR HEARING ON 27-9-2010, NONE FOR T HE ASSESSEE WAS PRESENT. NO APPLICATION REQUESTING FOR ANY ADJOURNMENT IS ALSO RECEIVED. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR TH AT THE ASSESSES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THESE APPEA LS. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS E MBODIED IN THE WELL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, I DISMISS THESE APP EALS ITA NO. 830 TO 833/PN/09 SWAMI GROUP A.Y. 2002-03 , 3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSES ARE A T LIBERTY TO MOVE APPLICATIONS FOR RECALLING OF THIS EX PARTE ORDER SHOWING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING / REPRESENTING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IF SO ADVISED. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. SD/- (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE,DATED THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- KOLHAPUR (4) CIT(A)- KOLHAUR (5) THE D.R. ITAT PUNE BENCH, PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE