The Budhewal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

MA 90/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5986 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.90/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 904/CHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 THE BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR VS. THE ACIT, CIRCL E III, MILLS LTD., VPO BUDHEWAL, LUDHIANA DSITT. LUDHIANA PAN NO. AAAJT0338G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS A MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-APP ELLANT FOR RESTORATION OF HIS APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 904/CHD/2 013 WHICH WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.8.2016 FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION. 2. NO ONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLA NT DESPITE NOTICE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT FOR EARLIER DATES ALSO, NOTICES HA VE BEEN SENT TO THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT NO O NE BOTHERED TO APPEAR. IT SEEMS THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTING THE PRESENT APPLICATION. EVEN THE MAIN APPEAL WHICH WAS TIME BARRED BY 491 DAYS, WAS ALSO DISMISSED FOR WANT TO PROSECUTION. THE LA W AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED MA NO. 90/CHD/2016 IN ITA 904/CHD/2013- M/S BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., LUDHIAN A 2 IN WELL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENT IBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING I N VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 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 MISC. APPLICATION FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE -APPELLANT IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22.12.2017 RKK MA NO. 90/CHD/2016 IN ITA 904/CHD/2013- M/S BUDHEWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., LUDHIAN A 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR