M/s. Amodini Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3743/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6610 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN KUMAR YADAV SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3743/DEL./2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) AMODHINI MARKETING PVT LTD. VS. ITO 4263/3, 2 ND FLOOR WARD-1(4) N-DELHI ANSARI ROAD NEW DELHI-110002 (PAN : AAHCA5980H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHR I ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 24.07.2018 PER N K CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEA L ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.10.201 4 IMPUGNED HEREIN, PASSED BY LD. CIT (A), NEW DELHI. 2. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DUE NO TICE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 24 TH JULY 2018, WAS SENT THROUGH RPAD, HOWEVER THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED AND RECEIVED BACK WITH REMARKS OF THE POSTMAN THAT NO SUCH FIRM IN THIS ADDRESS, RETURNED TO SENDER . EVEN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS FILED AN Y APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT, THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT HAVE AN Y OPTION EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON NON-PROSECUTION. AS IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR RIGHTS, AND NO T THOSE WHO SLEEP ITA NO.3743/DEL./2015 2 OVER THEM. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL K NOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. TH E TRIBUNAL, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED , 38 ITD 320 (DELHI), ALSO HELD THAT MERE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATT ENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORREC T THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE ADDRE SS GIVEN IN FORM-36, HENCE FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED (SUPRA), THE PRESENT AP PEAL STANDS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION, WITH A LIBERTY T O THE ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL. 4. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2018/TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.DIT (E), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.