Puma Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1108/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2937 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SRI N . S . SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1108 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 PUMA REALTORS PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 26 5, DHANRAJ CHAMBERS1 ST FLOOR, N EW DELHI SATBARI NEW DELHI 110 085 PAN: AA DCP6870D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: S MT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 14.03 . 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.03. 2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 2.1 2.201 4 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - 29, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 14.03.2018 , NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT REQUEST RECEIVED. THE NOTICE SERVED RETURNED WITH THE REMARK LEFT . IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO 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, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JU RA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND ITA 1108/DE L/2015 A.Y.2009 - 10 PUMA REALTORS P LTD. 2 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 THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. 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 TH E 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. 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 ASSESSEE 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 6 T H MARCH, 2018 . S D / - S D / - ( N . S . SAINI ) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 1 6 T H MARCH, 2018 *MV ITA 1108/DE L/2015 A.Y.2009 - 10 PUMA REALTORS P LTD. 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES