Smt. Latesh Panwar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3320/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2774 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. H. S. SIDHU , JM ITA NO. 3320/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 1 0 LATESH KUMAR, L/H LATE SH. JASVIR SINGH PANWAR, 2236/2, SHADI PUR, KHAMPUR, NEW DELHI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 33(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AJPP4985C ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SHRAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.07 .201 7 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT : 04 . 0 7 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXVI , NEW DELHI . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2017 NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 03.07.2017. ON 03.07.2017, ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. DR THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 04.07.2017. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITH ER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 3320 /DEL / 201 3 LATESH PANWAR 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBU S 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 APP EAL 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 MAD E, 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 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & AN OTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT ITA NO. 3320 /DEL / 201 3 LATESH PANWAR 3 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE 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 ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04 /0 7 /2017) SD/ - SD/ - ( H. S. SIDHU ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 04 /07 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR