M/s. Mahabir Proteinex Ltd., Karnal V. ACIT, Karnal

ITA 3835/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1616 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIDHAR DOAB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.3835/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S. MAHABIR PROTEINEX LTD., C/O RAJESH BAHL, 2211, SECTOR-13, U.E., KARNAL, HARYANA. V. ACIT, KARNAL CIRCLE, KARNAL. TAN/PAN: AABCM 5213H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHRIDHAR DOAB, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 27 11 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 11 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 13.03.2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), ROHTAK FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH O N 27.11.2018, THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE A SSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 01/10/2018, BUT NONE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKI NG ADJOURNMENT FILED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGIL ANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE I S EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT'. I.T.A. NO.3835/DEL/2015 2 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION , 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- [L.P. SAHU] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 PKK: