PAWAN KUMAR GARG,MANDI GOBINDGARH vs. ITO, MANDI GOBINDGARH

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against

the order dated 11.02.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax

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

3.5.2016 has been placed vide which the concerned C.A.s of the

assessee have informed that the last date of filing the appeal with

this Tribunal was 25.4.2016 but they could not file the appeal as they

had wrongly written the last date of filing of appeal as ‘15.5.2016’

in their dairy. That this had happened due to the reason that they

were busy with income tax returns as the last date of filing of return

was 31.3.2016 and even the date of completion of assessment in the

ITA No.525/Chd/2016- Pawan Kumar Garg, Mandi Gobindgarh 2

ongoing assessment proceedings was also 31.3.2016. The letter

placed on file does not seem to be an application but only intimation

by the concerned C.As of the assessee. Even as pleaded in the letter,

the C.A.s were busy with filing of return upto 31.3.2016. It has not

been explained as to what prevented them from filing the appeal from

31.3.2016 to 25.4.2016. We are not convinced with the reasons

stated in the letter dated 31.5.2016 and, hence, the request for

condonation of delay is declined.

representatives are interested in pursuing the present appeal. Vague

and identical grounds for adjournments have been filed time and

again. In the letter dated 30.11.2016. It has been stated that the C.A

was not feeling well, hence, was not able to attend the proceedings

and that the case may be adjourned to some other date; the case was

accordingly adjourned to 25.1.2017. Again, none come present on

behalf of the assessee on 25.1.2017 and an adjournment application

was moved. Thereafter, the Bench did not function. The case was

again listed on 23.10.2017. However again, identically worded letter

that the counsel was not feeling well, hence, the case be adjourned

to some other date, was filed. Thereafter again, today i.e. on

3.4.2018, identical worded letter has been filed. It seems that the

concerned representatives of the assessee are seeking adjournments

on false and vague grounds and even none has come present on

behalf of the assessee. The reasonable conclusion from the above

discussion is that the assessee otherwise is also not interested in

pursuing the present appeal.

ITA No.525/Chd/2016- Pawan Kumar Garg, Mandi Gobindgarh 3

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

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

ITD 320)(Del), these appeals are liable to be treated as unadmitted.

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.”

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.

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.

supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

ITA No.525/Chd/2016- Pawan Kumar Garg, Mandi Gobindgarh 4

Sd/- Sd/- (B.R.R.KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 03.04.2018 Rkk Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR