Rajinder Parshad Jain, Jind vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 912/Chd/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may dispose of an appeal for non-prosecution, treating it as unadmitted and dismissing it in limine, where the appellant, having been given notice of the hearing, neither appears nor seeks an adjournment, so that it is apparent the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; an appeal is not "pursued" merely by filing the memorandum of appeal, but only by effectively prosecuting it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Shri. Rajinder Parshad Jain. Vs. The ITO Govt. Contractor Ward 2 Jind, Jind
PAN No.AAJFR3351E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 19/03/2015 Date of Pronouncement : 19/03/2015
ORDER
PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.
The appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 29/08/2014
passed by the CIT(A), Rohtak.
2. Initiall y, this case was fixed for hearing on 01/01/2015. Later on, the case
was fixed for hearing on 19/03/2015. However, on today i.e 19/03/2015, none
appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought. It,
therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
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
DORM IENTIBUS 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 C IT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del),
we treat this appeal 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. Similarl y, 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 effectivel y pursuing the
same.
6. So, by respectfull y 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 on 19/03/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 19/03/2015 AG
Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR
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