M/s. Purshottam Lal RAmesh Chnd, INDORE V. ITO, CHITTORGARH

ITA 98/JODH/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9641 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MEENA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 98 /JODH/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 12 - 1 3 M/S PURSHOTTAM LAL RAMESH CHAND VS. THE ITO C/O. C.H. PADLIYA & CO. CA PRATAPGARH 90, DAWA BAZAR, 2 ND FL OOR, INDORE CHITTORGARH PAN NO. AAGFP6473L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 0 2 /0 3 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/03/2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DT. 28 / 11 /201 6 OF LD. CIT(A) - 1 , UDAIPUR PERTAINING TO 2009 - 10, ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER T W ICE . IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO NO ONE WAS PRESENT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE AS THE TRIBUNAL FEE IS SHORT BY RS. 8,000/ - . IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DESPITE NOTICES THE DEFECT CONTINUES T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI ON THE GROUND S OF BEING D EFECTIVE AND FOR NON PROSECUTION. I N THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M .P.) AS LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS 2 JURA SUBVENIUNT. ACCORDINGLY HOLDING THAT IN TH E PECULIAR FACTS THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT INTER ESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL T HE APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPRESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND UNDERTAKES TO CURE THE DEFECT POINTED OUT IT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 03/03/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/03/2017 AG COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT