Firoz Khan Pathan, RAJSAMAND v. ITO, RAJSAMAND

ITA 296/JODH/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29623314 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AGVPP0715P
Bench Jodhpur
Appeal Number ITA 296/JODH/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Firoz Khan Pathan, RAJSAMAND
Respondent ITO, RAJSAMAND
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 11-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBE & SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 294 295 & 296/JODH/2013 (A.YS : 2004-05 TO 2006-07) FIROZ KHAN PATHAN VS ITO WARD-1 GOAN PASUND RAJSAMAND. RAJSAMAND. PAN NO. AGVPP 0715 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2 013 ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 07.02.2013 OF LEARNED CIT(A) UDAIPUR. 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.10.201 3 BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.10.2013 NE ITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTERS. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO 2 SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RUL E 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) WE TREAT THESE APPEALS 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 HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 48 0) 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 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 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11.10. 2013) (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 11 TH OCTOBER 2013 VR/ COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT JODHPUR 4