M/s. Panoramic Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1787/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4763 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1787/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YE AR : 2006-07 PANORAMIC ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 119, 1 ST FLOOR, VARDHMAN FORTUNE MALL, COOMUNITY CENTRE, G.T.KARNAL ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN : AACCP0286C VS DCIT CIRCLE-14(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR . DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 /08/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 /08/2018 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/12/2014 OF PASSED BY LD. CIT (A)-VII, NEW D ELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT. FROM THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US, IT I S OBSERVED THAT NOTICE DATED 04.07.2018 HAS BEEN ISSU ED TO ASSESSEE, INTIMATING DATE OF HEARING. IT, THEREFORE , APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE TH E MATTER. ITA NO. 1787/DEL/2015 (PANORAMIC ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.) 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, 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) RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABS ENT 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 PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO. 1787/DEL/2015 (PANORAMIC ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.) 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN TH E 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 09/08/2018) SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (BEENA A. PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 09/08/2018 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR