Green Line Motors, Belgaum vs Assessee
- CitationITA NO. 381/PNJ/2014 : (A.Y - 2005-06)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following: where an assessee, having been duly intimated of the hearing, seeks adjournment on a request that gives no plausible reason, the request may be rejected; and where the assessee is not willing to prosecute the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed for default under the Tribunal's Rules, the Tribunal treating the appeal as not admitted on the footing that the assessee has not pursued its remedy.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ITA NO. 381/PNJ/2014 : (A.Y - 2005-06)
M/s. Green Line Motors Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dilip D. Chopra, Starline Motors, Ward-2(1), Belgaum Kakati Industrial Area, Kakati, (Respondent) Belgaum (Appellant) PAN : AAEFG2535L
Appellant by : None Respondent by : R. Durai Pandian, Ld. DR
Date of Hearing : 22/01/2015 Date of Order : 22/01/2015
ORDER
PER BENCH :
1. The above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A), Belgaum dt. 18.8.2014 for A.Y 2005-06. The appeal was fixed for hearing today and the Assessee was intimated about the hearing vide registered post dt. 21.11.2014. However, the Assessee vide application dt. 20.1.2015 has requested for adjournment. In the absence of any plausible reason given in the adjournment application, the same stands rejected.
2. The laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known dictum 'VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, as were considered in 38 ITD 320 (Del) in the case of CIT V. 2 ITA NO. 381/PNJ/2014 (A. Y : 2005-06)
Multiplan India Ltd. as also in 223 ITR 480 (M.P) in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar V. CWT, we treat the appeal as not admitted.
3. Therefore, following the decision of 38 ITD 320 read with Rule 24 & 25 with 19 of the ITA Rules, we dismiss the appeal for default since we find that the Assessee is not willing to prosecute the appeal. Our view gets support from the judgement of 255 ITR 467 (AP) and 265 ITR 252.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine.
5. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/01/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.T.Garasia) (P.K. Bansal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place : PANAJI / GOA Dated : 22/01/2015 *SSL* Copy to :
(1) Appellant (2) Respondent (3) CIT(A) concerned (4) CIT concerned (5) D.R (6) Guard file True copy, By order,
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free