Smt. Manjula Jain, New Delhi V. Addl. CIT Tax, New Delhi

ITA 2838/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 283820114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. C. GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 2838/DEL/2012 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2005 - 06 SMT. MANJULA JAIN, E - 12, KALINDI COLONY, NEW DELHI VS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 22, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AQPJ3978E ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJHA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 .0 3 .2015 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.03 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXIII, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON 07.01.2015 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED 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 . 2838 /DEL /2012 MANJULA JAIN 2 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 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 H IGH 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 SINC E 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 FILIN G 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. ITA NO . 2838 /DEL /2012 MANJULA JAIN 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON O UNCED IN THE COURT ON 23 /03 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - (G. C. GUPTA ) (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 23 /03 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(AP PEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR