Metro Communications, Ghaziabad V. ACIT, Noida

ITA 3289/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5852 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3289/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 METRO COMMUNICATION, PLOT NO.33, COMMERCIAL BLOCK, 2 ND FLOOR, SECTOR-14, (BEHIND WAVE CINEMA), KAUSHAMBI, GHAZIABAD. V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA. TAN/PAN: AAMFM 7625D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AMIT JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 01 03 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 05 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, NOIDA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS BENCH ON 01/03/2018. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJ OURNMENT FILED. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESS EE THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT THE SAME WAS RETURNED WITH A RE MARK REFUSED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL I.T.A. NO.3289/DEL/2016 2 KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT'. 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASE S CITED ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH MAY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH MAY, 2018