M/s Rancho Place Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4376/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5143 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENU AMITABH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM AND SH. N. K. SAINI, AM ITA NO. 4376 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011 - 12 RANCHO PLACE ESTATE PVT. LTD., 48, FRIENDS COLONY EAST, NEW DELHI - 110065 VS ASSTT. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 19, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A ACR5883P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. RENU AMITABH, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 .08 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 . 0 8 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2015 OF LD. CIT(A) - 30 , NEW DELHI . 2. THE NOTICE FOR HEARING IN THIS CASE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20.07.2017 BY RE GISTERED POST AT THE ADDRESS ME NTIONE D IN FORM NO. 36/IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A)/ ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.02.2014 , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , THE LD. CIT DR SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, NO BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, ITA NO. 4376 /DEL /201 5 RANCHO PLACE ESTATE PVT. LTD. 2 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 PRINCIPL E 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., (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 T HE 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HON BL E 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. ITA NO. 4376 /DEL /201 5 RANCHO PLACE ESTATE PVT. LTD. 3 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HON BLE SUPREME CO URT 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, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE 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 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR IT S NON - APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 /0 8 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( DIVA SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 17 /08 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR