Globus Infocom Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1803/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7396 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM ITA NO. 1803 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 GLOBUS INFOCOM LTD., C - 1/2, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOP MENT AREA, NEW DELHI - 110016 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 12(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ABCG3985C ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.08 .201 6 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT : 22.08 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.01 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XVIII , NEW DELHI . 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 20.05.2016 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE W HO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, ITA NO . 1803 /DEL /201 4 G LOBUS INFOCOM LTD. 2 VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX APPELLAT E 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, TH E 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 ASS ISTANCE 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 SAM E. ITA NO . 1803 /DEL /201 4 G LOBUS INFOCOM LTD. 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE 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 INCOM E TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 /0 8 /2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 22 /0 8 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR