India Yamaha Motor Private Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1720/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7725 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JM ITA NO S . 1720/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LT D., FIRST FLOOR, THE GREAT EASTERN CENTRE, 70, NEHRU PLACE, BEHIND IFCI TOWER, NEW DELHI - 110019 VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 11(1), C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ABCI7552F ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AMRENDRA KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.05 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .05 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2014 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 14 3(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.02.2016, HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THEREFORE, THE CASE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 11.05.2016 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUE D THROUGH RPAD ON 11.02.2016 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36B BUT WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NEITHER ITA NO . 1720 /DEL /201 4 INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. 2 ANYBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. 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 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 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 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 REFER ENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 1720 /DEL /201 4 INDIA YAMAHA MOTOR PVT. LTD. 3 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 , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION WITH THE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE THE APPROPRIATE AP PLICATION UNDER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 FOR RECALLING THE ORDER, IF THERE WAS ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE ON 11.05.2016 . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 /05 /2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 11 /05 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CI T 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR