THE SUB REGISTRAR,SOLAN vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (CIB), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 285/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 April 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals, as evidenced by their absence and the delay. Following established legal principles, the appeals were deemed unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals for multiple assessment years, but failed to appear before the tribunal for the hearing. The appeals were also barred by the limitation period.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and the appeals being time-barred.

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.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, 'B' CHANDIGARH

BE FO RE SH RI S AN J A Y GA R G, JUDICIAL ME MBER A N D D R . B . R. R. KU M A R , A C CO UN T AN T ME MBE R

I TA No s. 2 84 t o 286 / CH D/2 01 7

A s se ss me nt Y e a rs : 2 00 7- 08 t o 20 09 -10

T h e Su b R e gis t ra r , V s . T h e Di r e ct o r of In c o m e T ax (C IB) , S ol an , SC O 9 8- 10 0, 3 r d Flo o r, S e ct or 1 7 -C,

D is tt . S ol an (H .P. ) C h an di ga r h

P A N No . P T LS I6 2 84 C

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : None

Respondent by : Sh. Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 03.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2018

ORDER

Per Bench:

The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee for different assessment years against the common order dated 10.05.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)]-Shimla.

3.

The captioned appeals are barred by the limitation period of 210 days. None has come present on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice through registered post. It seems that the assessee is not 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, "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. 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.

Sd/(B.R.R.KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sd/-(SANJAY GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 03.04.2018

Rkk

Copy to:

- The Appellant - The Respondent - The CIT - The CIT(A) - The DR

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →