M/s. Shiv Shakti Co-op L/C Society Ltd., Rewari V. ACIT, Rewari

ITA 1796/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 179620114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 1796/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 M/S SHIV SHAKTI CO - OP L/C SOCIETY LTD., 619/29, SHIV COLONY, BHUDPUR ROAD, REWARI - 123401 VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MODEL TOWN, REWARI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A CAS6796G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. HEMANT GUPTA , DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.11 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .11 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2013 OF LD. CIT (A) , ROHTAK . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING I.E. 23.11.2015, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 05.11.2015, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE FIND TH AT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO I.E. 01.10.2013 AND 05.08.2014, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S C OUNSEL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 1796 /DEL /201 3 SHIV SHAKTI CO - OP 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOS E 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 APPEL LATE 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 HOL KAR 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. 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. ITA NO . 1796 /DEL /201 3 SHIV SHAKTI CO - OP 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 PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 /11 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULD IP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 /11 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR