M/s. Ramairen Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2435/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3683 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, J UDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2435 /DEL/201 3 A.Y. 20 04 - 05 RAMAIREN PROPERTIES PVT.LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 15(2) FLAT NO.55, SECTOR 14 NEW DELHI ROHINI NEW DELHI 110 085 PAN: AACCR 3113L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 08.02.2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.02.2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.02.2013 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - XVIII , NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 - 05. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT REQUEST RECEIVED. THE NOTICE SERVED RETURNED WITH THE REMARK INCOMPLETE ADDRESS . WE NOTICE FROM THE RECORDS THAT EARLIER ALSO THE CASE IS ADJOURN ED SEVERAL TIMES. 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 2 NON DORMI ENTIBUS 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 CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMIT TED. 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, 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 8 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 8 . S D / - S D / - ( R.K.PANDA ) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DT. 0 8 T H F E B . , 2018 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES