M/S MAA BHAGWATI RICE MILLS,KAITHAL vs. ACIT, KURUKSHETRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 707/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 April 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 held that the law aids those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing.

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, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 05.04.2018Pronounced: 05.04.2018

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 17.02.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax

[hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-Karnal.

3.

No one has come present on behalf of the assessee despite

service of notice. It seems that the assessee is not interested in

perusing its appeal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those

who 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 rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

ITA No.707/Chd/2017- Maa Bhagwati Rice Mills, Kaithal 2

as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38

ITD 320)(Del), this appeal is liable to be treated 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 the appeal for non-prosecution.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 05.04.2018 Rkk

ITA No.707/Chd/2017- Maa Bhagwati Rice Mills, Kaithal 3

Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →