Gopeshwar Hotel & Estate Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1690/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90852 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASDNTHAN

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.1690&1689/DEL/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VICE PRESIDE NT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 1690 &1689 /DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2007-08) GOPESHWAR HOTEL & ESTATE LTD. 2664/2, 2 ND FLOOR BEADON PURA, KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI AABCG9927G (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-12(2) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASDNTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 13/4/2015 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 13 /04/2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27/01/2012 OF CIT (A) IV, NEW DELHI. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSES NEITHE R ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSES SEE ON 26/02/2015 WHICH HAS 2 ITA NOS.1690&1689/DEL/2012 NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. SO, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 2. 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 TH E FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITT ED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA 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 REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNE D THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 3 ITA NOS.1690&1689/DEL/2012 THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 A PRIL 2015. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (N. K . SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER DATED: 13 /04/2015 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGIST RAR ITAT NEW DELHI SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 13.04.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15/5/15 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER 4 ITA NOS.1690&1689/DEL/2012