Mr. Chandra Prakash Chaudhary, New Delhi V. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 4220/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1406 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI , JM ITA NO. 4220 /DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 MR. CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY, B - 1, FIRST FLO OR, SAKET, NEW DELHI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A COPC6136F ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PRINCY SINGLA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 06.09 .201 8 DATE OF PR ONOUNCE MENT : 06 .09 .201 8 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.03 .2015 OF LD. CIT(A), DEHRADUN . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.06.2018 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES A ND THE DATE WAS NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE NOTING ON THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 19.06.2018 PLACED ON RECORD. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 4220 /DEL/2015 CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY 2 3. THE LAW A IDS 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 - T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE 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 TUKOJ IRAO 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 RE FERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO 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 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 PURSU ING THE SAME. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS 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 ITA NO. 4220 /DEL/2015 CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY 3 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /09 /2018) SD/ - SD/ - ( BEENA A. PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06 /09 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR