M/s. Dentsply India (P) Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4387/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91476 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I1
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , AM AND SH. C. M. GARG , JM ITA NO. 4387/DEL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 M/S DENTSPLY INDIA (P) LTD. PLOT NO. 358, FIES, PATPARGANJ INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI - 110092 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AA ACD3171E ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. Y. KAKKAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15 . 07 .2015 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 .07 .2015 ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2010 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD 10(1), NEW DELHI , ON THE DIRECTION OF THE DRP - I, NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 03.06.2010 U/S 144C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . EARLIER, T HIS CASE WAS FIXED TI ME TO TIME AND ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, NAMELY, DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS . LAST TIME THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 08.05.2014 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT , THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE . ITA NO. 4387 /DEL/2010 DENTSPLY INDIA (P) LTD. 2 HO WEVER, A FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING ON TODAY I.E. 15.07.2015 , WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.04.2015 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY, SO IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVED. IT, THEREFORE APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER . 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 VI EW 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 THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF TH E PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, 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 ITA NO. 4387 /DEL/2010 DENTSPLY INDIA (P) LTD. 3 REFERENCE UNANSWERED SI NCE 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 FIL ING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE MAY REQUEST FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES (TRIBUNAL), 1963. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 /07 / 2015) . SD/ - SD/ - (C. M. GARG ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 /07 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR