Sh. Amarpreet Singh Chadha, Ludhiana v. DCIT, C-1, , Ludhiana

ITA 1236/CHANDI/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 123621514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN JLDAO5576E
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1236/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Amarpreet Singh Chadha, Ludhiana
Respondent DCIT, C-1, , Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 29-11-2017
First Hearing Date 29-11-2017
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 16-08-2017
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1236/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. AMARPREET SINGH CHADHA VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1 PROP. M/S AMARPREET INDUSTRIES RISHI NAGAR LUDHI ANA E-725 PHASE 8 FOCAL POINT LUDHIANA PAN NO. JLDAO5576E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA SR DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2 LUDHIANA RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. ON TODAY I.E. 29.11.2017 NONE HAS COME FOR APPE ARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGI STERED POST. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PERUSING HIS APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON TH EIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON 2 DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN ADMITTED. 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 APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 03.2018 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR