ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Amit Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 1291/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 129120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHIM SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 1291/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 ACIT CIRCLE 20(1) NEW DELHI VS AMIT GUPTA 1531,OUTRAM LINE, KINGSWAY CAMP NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AEEPG4363G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. BHIM SINGH, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 07 .07.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 24.12.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE FORM 36 AS WELL AS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, RETURNED BACK, WITH THE REMARKS OF THE POSTA L AUTHORITY, LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER, SINCE NO CHANGE IN ADDRESS WAS INFORMED. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, ITA NO. 1291/DEL/2014 2 VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F 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. ITA NO. 1291/DEL/2014 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07 /07/2015) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 07 /07/2015 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1291/DEL/2014 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07/07/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 07/07/2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.