Shri The Joint Secretary, Organising Committee for Winter Games 2009, New Delhi V. JCIT, Dehradun

ITA 1576/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6821 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 1576 /DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 THE JOINT SECRETARY, ORGANIZING COMMITTEE FOR WINTER GAMES 2009, C/O - RAJNISH & ASSOCIATES, NO. 92 & 87, DEFENCE COLONY, FLYOVER MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110024 VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AAAAO1473G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS . ANIMA BARNWAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 .07 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .07 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2014 OF LD. CIT(A), DEHRADUN. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY W AS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.05.2016 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 28.07.2016, WHICH WAS NOTED BY THE AUTHORIZED RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AT T HE TIME OF HEARING THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE SIDE. IT, ITA NO . 1576 /DEL /201 5 J OINT SECRETARY 2 THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLE EP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERE D 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 THE 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. ITA NO . 1576 /DEL /201 5 J OINT SECRETARY 3 6 . TH EIR 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 , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOW ING 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 APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1 963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 /07 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 28 /07 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR