Pradeep Kumar Jindal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3844/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1836 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RASMITA JHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, J M ITA NO. 3844/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEA R : 2008-09 PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL, F-3/12, MODAL TOWN, NEW DELHI. AAIPJ8526A VS ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFWPC1171P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. RASMITA JHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.12.2015 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 OF CIT(A)-XXII, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS P RESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT W AS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THRO UGH REGISTERED POST ON 05.11.2015, WHICH HAS NOT YET BE EN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTER WAS A DJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 3844/DEL/2013 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO. 3844/DEL/2013 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10.12.2015 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 10.12.2015 *KAVITA ARORA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 3844/DEL/2013 4 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09.12.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.12.2015 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 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 10.12.2015 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.12.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.