Sh. Manjit Singh Sarin, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3361/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3495 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JM ITA NO.3361/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI MANJIT SINGH SARIN, 4 / 6, DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 055. PAN NO. ALCPS0030R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23 (4), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.04.2017 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXVIII, NEW DELHI. 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.02 .2017 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.04.2017 I.E. TODAY ; AND THE SAID DATE WAS NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS P RESENT ITA NO.3361/DEL/2014 2 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E 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 HONBLE MADH YA 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) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.3361/DEL/2014 3 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 M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. T HE 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 (AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON- APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/04/2017 ) SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 17/04/2017 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR