2007 (7) TMI 260

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act") against the order dated August 20, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench "B" in I. T. A. No. 695(Chd.) of 2004 in respect of the assessment year 1993-94, claiming that the following substantial questions of law would arise for our determination: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in denying the opportunity to the appellant/assessee to put forth his part of the case, is legally sustainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the authorities below in deciding the case of the assessee without going into the merits of the case, is legally sustai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d for 17 times on various dates but neither any written request nor any reply on behalf of the assessee-appellant was filed. Thus, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the assessee-appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. In this regard, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed the principle as embodied in the well-known dictum vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subbeniunt. Further appeal of the assessee-appellant filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated August 20, 2004. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 of the judgment, which are as under: "2.4 As per section 250 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) shall fix the date and plac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through an authorised representative. Despite fixing the case for seventeen hearings, no one had put in appearance nor any justifiable reason for adjournment was given. 5. The Tribunal also found that non-recording of reasons in support of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) would not amount to committing any illegality because the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has adopted the reasoning advanced by the Assessing Officer and has upheld his order. The judgment of this court, in th....