M/s Creative Capital Services P. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 219/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8502 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGA L

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACOCUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 219 TO 222/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 TO 2008-09) CREATIVE CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAACC5540L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAVI SARANGAL DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. PRINCIPAL CIT (OSD), GURGAON ALL DATE D 31.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2008-09. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AT THE ADDRESS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN PERUSING THE APPEALS. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEE P UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILA NTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS 2 WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA 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. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE 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 NO T ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3