Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd., UDAIPUR v. ACIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 310/JODH/2009 | 1991-1992
Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 31023314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACH4068A
Bench Jodhpur
Appeal Number ITA 310/JODH/2009
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd., UDAIPUR
Respondent ACIT, UDAIPUR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 10-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 10-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 10-07-2013
Assessment Year 1991-1992
Appeal Filed On 04-06-2009
Judgment Text
[1] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.310/JODH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1991-92 M/S HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS & VS. A.C.I.T. MINERALS LIMITED CIRCLE-1 C/O PUNJAWAT POKHARNA & HIRAN UDAIPUR. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 107 BAPU BAZAR UDAIPUR. PAN:AAACH4068A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.231 & 232/JODH/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 M/S HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS & VS. A.C.I.T. MINERALS LIMITED CIRCLE-1 C/O PUNJAWAT POKHARNA & HIRAN UDAIPUR. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 107 BAPU BAZAR UDAIPUR. PAN:AAACH4068A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL CIT D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 10/07/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/07/2013 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) UDAIPUR. THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR [2] 1991-92 IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 26/03/200 9 WHILE THE OTHER TWO APPEALS EMERGE FROM COMMON ORDER DATED 25/03/2011. 2. THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING MANY TIMES AN D MOST OF THE TIMES NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FEW OF THE INSTANCES WHEN THESE CASES WERE FIXED EARLIER ARE 03/01/2013 04/0 3/2013 13/03/2013 03/06/2013 ETC. WHEN THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 10/07/2013 I.E. TODAY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MO VED APPLICATIONS DATED 09/07/2013 FOR ADJOURNMENT STATING THEREIN AS UNDER : THE ABOVE REFERRED APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEF ORE YOUR GOOD SELF ON JULY 10 2013. SINCE I WAS BUSY WITH THE R EGISTRY AND FINAL FURNISHING OF MY NEW OFFICE WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 11 2013 SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO PREPARE THIS APPEAL THEREFORE I WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO ATTEND THE HEARING TODAY. THEREFORE WE REQUEST YOUR GOOD SELF TO KINDLY FIX ANOTHER DATE OF HEARING IF POSSIBLE IN NEXT MONTH AND OBLIGE. 3. FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE ABOVE APPLICATIONS THE BENCH FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO VALID GROUND FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNME NT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT 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 PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JUR A SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 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 UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: [3] IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/07/2013) SD/. SD/. (HARI OM MARATHA) (N. K. SAI NI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED :10/07/2013 *CL SINGH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR