Mr. J.S. Yadav, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 3818/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86873 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. A. T. VARKEY , JM ITA NO. 3818 /DEL/201 3 : ASSTT. YEAR: 200 4 - 0 5 J. S. YADAV, 13/537, VASUNDHRA GHAZIABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1( 3 ), GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AA LPY6768L ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. GAURAV DUDEJA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04 . 03 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 . 03 .201 5 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.03 .201 3 OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED ON 27 .0 1 .201 5 AND WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 04.03.2015 SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PAPER BOOK ON THE SAID DATE AND THE DATE WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NEITHER ANYBO DY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE 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 ITA NO. 3818/DEL/2013 2 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 INDI A 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 P ARTY, 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 ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HON BLE PU NJAB & 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SU PRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 4 /03/2015 ). SD/ - SD/ - ( A. T. VARKEY ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3818/DEL/2013 3 DATED: 04 /03/2015 A.K. VERMA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 3818/DEL/2013 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04 . 03 .201 5 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04 . 03 .201 5 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 05 . 03 .201 5 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 05 . 03 .201 5 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK.