Dev Bhoomi Development Society, Solan V. ITO, Parwanoo

MA 110/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7051 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GEETINDER MAAN

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 110/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 513/CHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEV BHOOMI DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, VS. THE ITO, SHANKAR BHAWAN, PARWANOO VPO CHABNDI, TEHSIL KASUALI, DISTT. SOLAN (H.P.) PAN NO. AAAATD8836D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. GEETINDER MAAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.08.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION DATED 11.9.2014 HAS B EEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE-APPLICANT PLEADING THEREIN FOR RECALLI NG THE ORDER DATED 11.7.2014 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL WHICH WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, NONE HAS C OME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE REVEA LS THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 7.5.2013 AND THE FIRST HEA RING WAS FIXED ON 1.8.2013. HOWEVER, ON THAT DATE NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF 2 OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER ON NUMEROUS DATES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT EXCEPT ON 18.2.2014, 25.3 .2014 AND 9.4.2014, NONE HAD ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS. ON THE SAID DATE S ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED, THAT TOO AT THE REQUEST ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DUE TO NON-PRESENCE OF THE AR / ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL W AS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 8.7.2014. AGAIN TO THAT DATE, NOBODY APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11.7.2014 FOR NON-PRO SECUTION. AGGRIEVED BY THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION. 3. AGAIN ON PERUSAL OF THE MISC. APPLICATION FILE, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT INITIALLY THE M.A. WAS FIXED ON 30.1.2015, HOW EVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE REAFTER THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED NUMBER OF TIMES FROM YEARS 2015 TILL DATE BUT NEITHER ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ERUSING HIS MISC. APPLICATION. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WE LL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CON SIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS MISC. APPLICATION AS UN-ADMITTED BEING NON MAINTAINABLE. 3 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN, W E DISMISS THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 .8.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR