Tara Health Foods Ltd., Malerkotla v. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2013 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 103621514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AACCT3940R
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1036/CHANDI/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Tara Health Foods Ltd., Malerkotla
Respondent DCIT, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 16-12-2015
Next Hearing Date 16-12-2015
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 11-11-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1036/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-10 TARA HEALTH FOODS LTD. VS. THE DCIT VILLAGE JITWAL KALAN CENTRAL CIRCLE I TEHSIL LUDHIANA MALERKOTLA PAN NO. AACCT3940R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 29/04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/04/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/08/2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I LUDHIANA. 2. INITIALLY THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11 /12/2013. THEREAFTER THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED NUMBER OF TIMES AT THE INSTANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. LATER ON THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 29/04/2015. HOWEVER ON TODAY I.E 29/04/2015 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. THE LAW AIDS T HOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED 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 CONSIDE RED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT T HIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 2 3. 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. 4. SIMILARLY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NO T 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 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/04/2015. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29/04/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT TH E CIT(A) THE DR