Shri Gurdeep Singh,Sahnewal,Ludhiana Vs The ITO, Ward-III(2), Ludhiana
July, 09th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCHES `A' CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT
AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 341/Chd/2012
Assessment Year: 2006-07
Shri Gurdeep Singh, Vs The ITO, Ward-III(2),
PAN No. AZEPS3987K
Appellant By : None
Respondent By : Shri N.K. Saini
Date of hearing : 05.07.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2012
PER H.L.KARWA, VP
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of
CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 12.01.2012 in confirming the penalty of Rs .
25,000/- levied u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for
the assessment year 2006-07.
2. The above appeal was fixed for hearing on 05.07.2012. No body
appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing was sent to the
assessee by RAPD on 17.5.2012. The above notice has not been received
back un-served. Thus, it is presumed that the notice of hearing has been
served on the assessee. The assessee has also not submitted any application
seeking adjournment of hearing. In view of the above, we presume that the
assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. The laws aid those who are
vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. The principle is embodied as
well known dictum, `VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA
SUBVENIUNT'. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of
Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in 38 ITD 320
(Del) in the case of CIT v Multiplan India Ltd., we treat this appeal as
3. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of
Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v CWAT 223 ITR 480 wherein it has been
held as under:-
"If the party, at whose instance the refer ence 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 cas e 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 v B.N.
Bhattarchargee And Another 118 ITR 461 at page 477-78 held that the appeal
does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing
6. So by res pectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra),
we dismiss this appeal filed by the assess ee for non prosecution.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 6 t h day of July, 2012
(T. R. SOOD) (H.L.KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VI CE PRESIDENT
Dated : 6 t h July, 2012
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR