M/s R. N. Gupta & Co. Ltd., Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

MA 12/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2753 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 12/CHD/2013 (IN ITA NO. 957/CHD/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05` M/S R.N. GUPTA & CO.LTD. VS. THE DCIT C-55 CIRCLE I FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO.AABCR9636F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/03/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. 1. INITIALLY, THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07 /03/2013. THEREAFTER THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED NUMBER OF TIMES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON, THE C ASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20/03/2015. HOWEVER, ON TODAY I.E 20/03/ 2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NEITHER ANY ADJ OURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE V IGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBO DIED IN WELL 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 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 2. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA 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. 3. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETU RNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 4. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 5. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/03/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27/03/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR