C.S. Ashoka, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 971/BANG/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 97121114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SARAVANAN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.971/BANG/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI C.S. ASHOK, PROP. TRUPTI SERVICE STATION, 123/49, 3 RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 078 . APPELLAN T. PAN AEOPA 0323A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SARAVANAN. DATE OF HEARING : 18.04.2012. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2012. O R D E R PER SHRI N. K. SAINI, A.M . : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2004-05. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- II AT BANGALORE DATED 22.01.2010. THE APPEAL ARISE OUT OF THE ASSE SSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE APPEAL WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 9.8.2011 AFTER ALLOWING THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTERWARDS, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SEVERAL TIMES FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND FIN ALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18.4.2012. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED ON 24.02.2012 AND IN HI S PRESENCE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 2 ITA NO.971/BANG/10 18.04.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNME NT ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS. HOWEVER TODAY, EVEN DATE, WHEN THE CASE IS POSTED FOR HEARI NG, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS 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 UNADMITTED. 3. 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWER ED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. 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 D OES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN T HE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18TH APR, 2012. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED: 18.04.2012. *REDDY GP 3 ITA NO.971/BANG/10 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, - A BENCH. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDE R ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE