Sh. Ashok Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1321/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 132120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• 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. 1321/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03 ASHOK KUMAR 537, POCKET C-8, SECTOR-8, ROHINI NEW DELHI VS ITO, WARD -21(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAGPA1128K ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. BHIM SINGH, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 09 .07.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-XVI, NEW DELHI. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE A T THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 / IMPUGNED ORDER / ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE SAME RETURNED BACK WITH TH E REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITY THAT THE HOUSE REMAINED LOC KED WHENEVER VISITED AGAIN AND AGAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INFORMED CHANGE IN ADDRESS, IF ANY, IT THEREFORE, A PPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MAT TER. ITA NO. 1321/DEL/2014 2 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, 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. ITA NO. 1321/DEL/2014 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/07/2015) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 09/07/2015 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 1321/DEL/2014 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09/07/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09/07/2015 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.