SRF Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT (LTU), New Delhi

ITA 356/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3697 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K CHAUDHARY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.356/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SRF LIMITTED, C-8, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI. V. ACIT, LTU, NEW DELHI TAN/PAN: AAACS 0206P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: H.K. CHAUDHARY, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING: 08 02 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08 02 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 10.11.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL-III, NEW DELHI FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENC H ON 08/02/2018. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED W ITH A REMARK LEFT. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FILED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RI GHTS. THIS I.T.A. NO.356/DEL/2015 2 PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL 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 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 PKK: