Shri Banshilal Sahu Pro;. M/s. Sahu patasi Bhandar, UDAIPUR v. ITO, UDAIPUR

ITA 53/JODH/2007 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5323314 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN MARCH2007M
Bench Jodhpur
Appeal Number ITA 53/JODH/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Shri Banshilal Sahu Pro;. M/s. Sahu patasi Bhandar, UDAIPUR
Respondent ITO, UDAIPUR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-11-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 23-01-2007
Judgment Text
1 ITA 53-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KA LRA ) ITA NO. 53/JODH/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03. SHRI BANSHILAL SAHU PROP. M/S. SAHU PATASI BHANDAR VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1 SHASTRI CIRCLE UDAIPUR. UDAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G.R. KOKANI DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2011. ORDER DATED : 30.11.2011. PER R.K. GUPTA J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN SPITE OF NOTICE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY REG ISTERED POST A/D FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 28.11.2011 THE CASE WAS NOT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE HIS CASE. SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DE CISION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTA TE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 3. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30. 11.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 2 COPY FORWARDED TO: SHRI BANSHILAL SAHU UDAIPUR. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR. THE LD. CIT (A) BY ORDER THE CIT THE D/R THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.53/JODH//2007) AR ITAT JODHPUR 3 3. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AND ALSO ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 48 0 (MP) WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 4 IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BY REGISTERED POST A T THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE RESPONDENT. HENCE THE BENCH DECIDED TO PROCEED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI B.P. JAIN) ITA NO. 415/JP/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S. YASH LAXMI (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. THE I.T.O. 5 29 INDUSTRIAL AREA JHOTWARA JAIPUR WARD 3(1) JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L.R. MEENA ORDER PER B.P. JAIN AM:- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 7-3-2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE NOTICE SENT BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE LAST KNOW N ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS T HAT FACTORY / OFFICE IS CLOSED FOR A LONG TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS. IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS TO PURSUE ITS CASE. SO IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDI A (P) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 26-2-2007. ( I.C. SUDHIR) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: MARCH 2007 MISHRA COPY TO: 1.M/S. YASH LAXMI (INDIA) PVT. LTD. JAIPUR 2. THE I.T.O. WARD 3(1) JAIPUR 3.THE LD. CIT (A) BY ORDER 4.THE CIT 5.THE D/R 6.THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.415/JP/2005) AR: ITAT: JAIPUR 6 3. THE LAWS ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FAC TS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPE LLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. AND ALSO ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 48 0 (MP) WE TREAT THE APPEAL AS NOT ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. (BEING THE OLD CASE THE BENCH DECIDED TO DISPOSE O F THE APPEALS EX-PARTE ON MERIT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD.) 7 THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 12-02- 2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THE TRIBUNAL SENT THE NOTICE TO THE LAST KNOWN A DDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE CASE WAS NOT REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURS UE ITS CASE. SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. C WT [1997] 223 ITR 480 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-07-2009 8 -------------------- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 31-10- 2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN SPITE OF NOTING THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING OF T HE CASE FOR 20-7-2009 BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASE WAS NOT REPRESENTED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. FROM THIS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE ITS CASE. SO IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DE LHI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 AND ALSO ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF L ATE TUKHOJI RAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT ADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-07-2009