Rakesh Kumar, New Delhi V. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3386/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2812 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHEFALI SWAROOP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI , JM ITA NO. 3386 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 1 0 RAKESH KUMAR, C/O - RAVI GUPTA, ADVOCATE, E - 6A, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI - 110048 VS CIT, GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A XMPK7608 P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MRS. SHEFALI SWAROOP, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.06 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 . 0 6 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 .03.2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , GHAZIABAD . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. E ARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.03.2017, ON THE SAID DATE ALSO NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 25.04.2017 BY RPAD ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RET URNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 3386 /DEL /201 4 RAKESH KUMAR 2 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, VIGILA NTIBUS 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 THI S 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 I S MADE, 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 O F 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 & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT ITA NO. 3386 /DEL /201 4 RAKESH KUMAR 3 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO 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 - PRO SECUTION. 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, TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 /0 6 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA A. PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 1 2/06 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR