M/s Modage Housing Development, Mohali V. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

ITA 858/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6564 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 858/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 MODAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT VS. THE ITO 394 PHASE 3B1 WARD 6(2) MOHALI MOHALI PAN NO. AAECM2074M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 26/09/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/12/2017 ORDER PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2, CHANDIGARH DT. 08/03/2017. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24/05/2017 AND THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 18/07/2017 AND THE CASE WAS F URTHER ADJOURNED TO 26/09/2017. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE A SSESSEE AND WAS DULY SERVED. TODAY, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NOBODY ATTENDED. EVEN NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THE LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVE NIUN. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HO LD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD , WE PLACED RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 2 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PR OSECUTION. 5. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY IF SO ADVISED TO PRA Y FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUM AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14/12/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR