Sh. Tarun Kumar Shah, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 181/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96996 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH (SMC - I) NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 181/DEL./2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 SHRI TARUN KUMAR SHAH, VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. TARUN TRADING CO. WARD 25(1), NEW DELHI. NP - 94A, MAURYA ENCLAVE, PITAM PURA, DELHI. [PAN: ARSPS 2770 E] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT : 18 .08.2015 ORDER TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 .10.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - X XIV , DELHI. 2. EARLIER, TH IS CASE WAS FIXED ON 16.07.15 AND ADJOURNED FOR 18.08.2015 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 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 THE IR 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 ITA NO. 181 /DEL/2014 2 CONSIDERED IN THE CA SE 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 HE LD 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 LORDSHI PS 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 BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18.08.2015 ) SD/ - (N.K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18.08.2015 *AKS/ - ITA NO. 181 /DEL/2014 3 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI