Bindia Chhabra, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3171/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3699 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3171/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 GRAVITY LOGISTIC LTD. B-6/8, QUTUB ELCLAVE PHASE-1 GURGAON VS D CIT CIRCLE-12(10) C.R.BUILDING, BHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AANCG7044A ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 30 . 0 1 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 0 1 .201 8 ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT :- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-VIII, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE E 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 KN OWN DICTUM, ITA NO. 3171/DEL/2013 2 VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABS ENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 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 T HE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3171/DEL/2013 3 (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31/01/2018) SD/- SD/- (BEENA A. PILLAI) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 31/01/2018 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 30/01/2018 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30/01/2018 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 31/01/2018P 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *