Sh. Sudershan Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 395/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3030 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 395/DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 SH. SUDERSHAN KUMAR, S/O SH. JASWANT SINGH, R/O J - 127, FIRST FLOOR, FRONT SIDE, GALI NO. 9, MOHAN GARDEN, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110059 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 44(3 ) , NEW DELHI - 110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A DSPK2136N ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVEN UE BY : MS. ASHIMA NEB , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.12 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .12 .201 7 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2016 OF LD. CIT(A) - 15 , DELHI . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 07.11 .2017 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT , THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 1 1 .12 .2017. THE D ATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND NOTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES . HOWEVER, D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 395 /DEL /201 7 SUDERSHAN KUMAR 2 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 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 INDIA LTD., (3 8 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 W HOSE 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 PUNJAB & HAR YANA 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 CAS E 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 NO . 395 /DEL /201 7 SUDERSHAN KUMAR 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DI SMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEAR ANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11/12 /2017 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 11/12 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR