SHRI SUSHAM SINGLA Vs. THE ACIT
LAWS(IT)-2014-6-34
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 05,2014

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE appeals filed by the assessee for different assessment years are against the separate orders all dated 30.08.2013 of CIT (Appeals) -I, Ludhiana.
(2.) EARLIER , these cases were fixed for hearing on 13.11.2013 but the Bench did not function on that date and cases were adjourned to 20.3.2014. Later on, these cases were again adjourned to 2.6.2014 and the date of hearing was informed to both the parties. However, on 02.06.2014 none was present 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 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), we treat these appeals 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. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab and 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.