M/s. Aerens Entertainment Zone Private Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2500/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6693 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JM ITA NO. 2500/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 M/S AERENS ENTERTAINMENT ZONE PVT. LTD. , 6 TH FLOOR, MAHINDRA TOWERS, 2A, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110066 VS DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (1), NEW DELHI - 110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A CCA8583B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. S. K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.11 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .11 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - IV , 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 29.09 .2016 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE 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, ITA NO . 2500 /DEL /201 3 AERENS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. 2 VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND K EEPING 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 UNADMITTED. 4 . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE MA DHYA 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 PREPA RATION 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 U NANSWERED 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 ME AN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 2500 /DEL /201 3 AERENS ENTERTAINMENT PVT. 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 ORD ER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME 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 COU RT ON 15/11 /2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 15/11 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR