Sh. Saaj Pandey, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 2413/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 241320114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARABHJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2413/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 200 9 - 10 SAAJ PANDEY, 1D - 11, B.P., NIT, FARIDABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - II (2), CGO COMPLEX, NH - IV, FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AILPP4132B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SARABHJIT SINGH , DR DATE OF HEARING : 16 .0 9 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - 2 , FARIDABAD . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT I N SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 02.09.2015 ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36, IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EARLIER. THE REGISTRY HA S POINTED OUT DEFECT BY ISSUIN G DEFECT NOTI CE ON 20.11.2014, T HAT THE APPEAL FEE WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE PROPER HEAD. THAT DEFECT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 2413 /DEL /2014 SAAJ PANDEY 2 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 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 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULE S 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 I TR 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 TH E 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 ITA NO . 2413 /DEL /2014 SAAJ PANDEY 3 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I 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 16 /0 9 /2015 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16/09 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR