Mr. Karan Singh Sehrawat, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3240/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 324020114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P D TAN EJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 3240 TO 3242/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR S : 200 7 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 KARAN SINGH SEHRAWAT, C - 1/102 2, VASANTKUNJ, DELHI - 110070 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 4(4) , CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A IVPS1409H ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. P. D. TANEJA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 .10 .2015 DATE OF PR ONOUNCEMENT : 14 .10 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 19.03.2015 OF LD. CIT(A) - 13 , NEW DELHI . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED . IT IS NOTICED THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 24.08.2015 ALSO, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. ON 14.10.2015 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36/IMPUGNED ORDER/ASSESSMENT ORDER BY RAPD ON ITA NO S. 3240 TO 3242 /DEL /2015 KARAN SINGH SEHRAWAT 2 01.09.2015 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. 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 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 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 ENA BLE 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. ITA NO S. 3240 TO 3242 /DEL /2015 KARAN SINGH SEHRAWAT 3 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, I DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 /10 /2015 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 4 /10 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR