M/s Naresh Chand Jain HUF, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3803/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0072 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH , JM AND SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 3803 /DEL/2011 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2002 - 03 ITA NO. 3804 /DEL/2011 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2003 - 0 4 M/S NARESH CHAND JAIN HUF, C - 9/25, SECTOR - 8, ROHINI, NEW DELHI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(2) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ABFN4078Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. P. D AM KANUNJHA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27 .0 5 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.05 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2011 OF LD. CIT(A) - XX V , NEW DELHI. 2. DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING NO BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . TH E NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUED ON 30.04 .2015 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTH ORITY . FROM THE RECORD IT IS FOUND THAT ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS ALSO, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT INTEREST ED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NOS.3803 & 3804 /DEL /2011 NARESH CHAND JAIN HUF 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT T HOSE 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 WE RE 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) 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 PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND T O 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 UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSES SEE. 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.3803 & 3804 /DEL /2011 NARESH CHAND JAIN HUF 3 7. SO BY RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27/05 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( DIVA SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27/05 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR