Team Computers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 3663/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6554 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. LALIT KUMAR , JM ITA NO S . 3663 & 2160 /DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR S : 2008 - 09 & 2009 - 10 TEAM COMPUTERS PVT. LTD., 1, MOHD. PUR, NEW DELHI - 110016 VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) - XIX, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAACT3478J ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY , SR. DR D ATE OF HEARING : 29 .11 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 11 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 19, NEW DELHI DATED 27.11.2012 AND 21.01.2013 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 RESPECTIVELY. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED ON 18.10.2016 BY RPAD AT T HE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND FORM NOS. 36 WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NOS. 3663 & 2160 /DEL /201 3 TEAM COMPUTERS P VT. LTD. 2 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOS E WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS 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 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) WH EREIN 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO A NSWER 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 & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NOS. 3663 & 2160 /DEL /201 3 TEAM COMPUTERS P VT. LTD. 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY B Y FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS 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 S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (O RDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 /11/2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( LALIT KUMAR ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 29 /11 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR