M/S PARVATIYA GRAMIN BANK LTD. (NOW HIMACHAL GRAMIN BANK),MANDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, PALAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1575/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 August 2018AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal precedents regarding non-appearance and non-prosecution, decided that the appeals were unadmitted. The principle that law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights, was applied.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12. Despite proper service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Respondent: Ms. Geetinder Mann, Sr.DR
Hearing: 30.07.2018Pronounced: 01.08.2018

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Palampur (H.P.), [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 24.03.2017 & 28.3.2017 respectively.

2.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. It appears that the assessee is no more interested in perusing its appeals. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well-known dictum,

2 ITA Nos.1575 & 1576/Chd/2017- M/s Parvatiya Gramin Bank Ltd., Mandi. H.P.

“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’.

Considering the facts and keeping in view 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.

3.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya 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, Hon’ble 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 not any

assistance from the assessee.

5.

Their Lordships of Hon’ble 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 appeal but effectively pursuing the

same.

6.

So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we

dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution.

7.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court

(ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 01.08.2018 Rkk

3 ITA Nos.1575 & 1576/Chd/2017- M/s Parvatiya Gramin Bank Ltd., Mandi. H.P.

Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →