Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Assistant Commissioner of Incometax

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0446 (Luck-Trib) : (2013) 050 (I) ITCL 0366 : (2012) 079 DTR 0241 In The Itat, Lucknow Bench H. L. Karwa, V.P. & N. K. Saini, A.m. Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Asstt. CIT M.A. Nos. 10 to 17, 20 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 62 (Luck.) of 2008 In I.T. Appeal Nos. 575, 576 & 646 (Luck.) of 2005, 149 & 167 of 2006, 53, 241 & 435 of 2007 and IT Appeal Nos. 174, 175, 1326, 1361, 1371, 1372, 1387, 1388 & 1623 (All.) of 1997, 262, 344 & 345 (All.) of 1999 Block Period Ending on 1-4-1986 - 25-9-1996, 3-9-1996, 3-9-1997 & 14-5-1997 A.Ys. 1987-88 to 1989-90, 1991-92 to 1995-96, 1997-98 to 1999-2000, 2001-02 & 2002-03 15 February, 2011 In favour of assessee. Applicant by : Amit Shukla & Rakesh Garg Respondent by : P.K. Bajaj & Anadi Verma. ORDER *H.L. Karwa, V.P.* These Miscellaneous Applications by different assessees arise out of the different orders of the Tribunal passed in above appeals. By means of these Miscellaneous Applications, the assessees sought setting aside of ex parte orders passed in above appeals and recall of the appeals for hearing on merits. While disposing of the above appeals, the Tribunal passed identical orders in one set of appeals i.e., I.T.A. No. 575(Luc.)/2005, ITA No. 576 (Luc.)/2005, ITA No. l49(Luc.)/2006, ITA No. 262 (Alld.)/1999 and ITA No. 646(Luc.)/2005 and in remaining appeals, the Tribunal has passed almost similar orders. For the sake of convenience, we will reproduce the order from ITA Nos. 575(Luc.)/2005 & 576(Luc.)/2005, which reads as under : 'Both these appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Agra dated 17-5-2005 relating to assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. (2) The above noted cases were fixed for hearing on 30-10-2007. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. Earlier the cases were fixed for hearing on severed times but at the assessees request the same were adjourned. There was also no communication or information as to why assessee remained absent on the above etc. It seems that assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum 'vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt'. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions or rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1420 (Del-Trib) we treat these appeals as un-admitted. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 0446 (Luck-Trib) : (2013) 050 (I) ITCL 0366 : (2012) 079 DTR 0241

In The Itat, Lucknow Bench

H. L. Karwa, V.P. & N. K. Saini, A.m.

Nawal Kishore & Sons Jewellers v. Asstt. CIT

M.A. Nos. 10 to 17, 20 to 22, 24 to 27, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 62 (Luck.) of 2008 In I.T. Appeal Nos. 575, 576 & 646 (Luck.) of 2005, 149 & 167 of 2006, 53, 241 & 435 of 2007 and IT Appeal Nos. 174, 175, 1326, 1361, 1371, 1372, 1387, 1388 & 1623 (All.) of 1997, 262, 344 & 345 (All.) of 1999

Block Period Ending on 1-4-1986 - 25-9-1996, 3-9-1996, 3-9-1997 & 14-5-1997 A.Ys. 1987-88 to 1989-90, 1991-92 to 1995-96, 1997-98 to 1999-2000, 2001-02 & 2002-03

15 February, 2011

In favour of assessee.

Applicant by : Amit Shukla & Rakesh Garg

Respondent by : P.K. Bajaj & Anadi Verma.

ORDER

H.L. Karwa, V.P.

These Miscellaneous Applications by different assessees arise out of the different orders of the Tribunal passed in above appeals. By means of these Miscellaneous Applications, the assessees sought setting aside of ex parte orders passed in above appeals and recall of the appeals for hearing on merits. While disposing of the above appeals, the Tribunal passed identical orders in one set of appeals i.e., I.T.A. No. 575(Luc.)/2005, ITA No. 576 (Luc.)/2005, ITA No. l49(Luc.)/2006, ITA No. 262 (Alld.)/1999 and ITA No. 646(Luc.)/2005 and in remaining appeals, the Tribunal has passed almost similar orders. For the sake of convenience, we will reproduce the order from ITA Nos. 575(Luc.)/2005 & 576(Luc.)/2005, which reads as under :

'Both these appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), Agra dated 17-5-2005 relating to assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000.

(2) The above noted cases were fixed for hearing on 30-10-2007. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. Earlier the cases were fixed for hearing on severed times but at the assessees request the same were adjourned. There was also no communication or information as to why assessee remained absent on the above etc. It seems that assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum 'vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt'. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions or rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.) : 1991 TaxPub(DT) 1420 (Del-Trib) we treat these appeals as un-admitted.