Karuna Shanker, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3154/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6660 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 17-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - III , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 3154/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 KARUNA SHANKER, B - 70, AMBEDKAR COLONY, BEHIND TEMPLE, CHATTARPUR, NEW DELHI - 110074 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 24(3), NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A NZPS6117Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. S. K. JAIN , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 .11 .20 1 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .11 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - II , NEW DELHI . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT NOTIC E OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 07.10 .2016 BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FORM NO. 36 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. EARLIER ALSO WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04.10 .2016 NO BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 3154 /DEL /201 6 KARUNA SHANKER 2 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 RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN I NDIA 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 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF TH E 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 COU RT 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. ITA NO . 3154 /DEL /201 6 KARUNA SHANKER 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR IT S NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 /11 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 18 /11 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR