Sh. Parminder Singh Dhinda, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

MA 41/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6580 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 41/CHD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 800/CHD/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) SH. PARMINDER SINGH DHINDSA, VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(1), # 504, SECTOR 11-B, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ANQPS6327K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY TH E APPLICANT- ASSESSEE PLEADING THEREIN THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT O N RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 800/CHD/2017 2. NO ONE HAS COME FOR APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT APPEARS THAT THE APPLICANT I S NOT INTERESTED IN PERUSING HIS MISC. APPLICATION. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED IN WELL- KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JUR A SUB 2 MA NO.41/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.800/CHD/2017- SH. PARMINDER SINGH DHINDSA, CHANDIGARH VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VI EW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPLICATION AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLK AR 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 NO T BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE 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- 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION FOR NON-PR OSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 18.05.2018 RKK 3 MA NO.41/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO.800/CHD/2017- SH. PARMINDER SINGH DHINDSA, CHANDIGARH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR