SHRI BANA SINGH ,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 2 (4) , BHOPAL

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.11.2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the issue of notice u/s.148 and the assessment made pursuant to such notice are unlawful and without jurisdiction and, therefore, be cancelled Page 1 of 3 Bana Singh Page 2 of 3 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not justified in confirming the protective addition made at Rs. 1,44,17,317. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. and in law as the assessee does not maintain any books of accounts and therefore the addition of Rs. 14417317 u/s 68 is unlawful and unjustified and therefore be deleted. 5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs. 14417317 is unlawful and unjustified and therefore be deleted.

6. The aforesaid non compliances reveals beyond doubt that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter of present appeal. Thus, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum VIGILATIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT". Considering the facts and relying on the decision of the Hon'ble, ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38- ITD-320 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223-ITR-480 the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

No. 1 to 5 which challenge the addition of Rs. 1,44,17,317/- made by the AO u/s 68 of Act and challenged the notice u/s 148 issued by the AO. It is noted that the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by me for non prosecution in para

6. In view thereof the various grounds raised in appeal have become academic in nature. Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 5 are dismissed.” Page 2 of 3 Bana Singh Page 3 of 3 3. Thus, it is clear from the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the appeal of the assesse was not adjudicated on merits but it was dismissed for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and liable to be set aside. We order accordingly and matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding appeal of the assesse afresh on merits after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assesse.

The Order is pronounced in the open court after conclusion of the hearing on 22.06.2023.