The Siwanka Co-op L/C Society Ltd., Sonepat V. ACIT, Sonepat

ITA 3431/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7332 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 3431 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE SIWANKA CO - OP L/C SOCIETY LTD., VPO SIWANKA, DIS TT. SONE PAT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SONEPAT CIRCLE, SONEPAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AATT3033G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 .08 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 . 08 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.04 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , ROHTAK . 2 . EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.06.2016 AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. DR HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 24 .08.2016. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER BUT THE SAME RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS ADDRESS WAS NOT COMPLETE . SINCE THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH RPAD AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED OTHER ADDRESS, IF ANY. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF ITA NO . 3431 /DEL /201 4 SIWANKA CO - OP L/C SOCIETY LTD. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE E 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 KE EPING 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 MAD HYA 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 PREPAR ATION 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 UN ANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO . 3431 /DEL /201 4 SIWANKA CO - OP L/C SOCIETY LTD. 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 MEA N, 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, I 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. (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COU RT ON 26 /0 8 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 26 /0 8 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR