Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 104/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7280 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 104/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 SH. JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA, VILLAGE - KANAWANI, INDIRAPURAM, CHIJJARSI, GHAZIABAD - 201001 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3 ), GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ZPPS2130R ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. S. K. JAIN , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 31 .08 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .08 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , GHAZIABAD . 2 . EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.07 .2016 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 31 .08.2016 , BOTH THE PARTIES NOTED THE DATE . HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED T O PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, ITA NO . 104 /DEL /201 5 JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA 2 VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRO VISIONS 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 THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4 . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COUR T 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 BO OKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5 . SIMILARLY, 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 AS SESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6 . 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 EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 104 /DEL /201 5 JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICA TION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 /0 8 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 31 /0 8 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR