Varshney Bhandu Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4485/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7122 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A M AND SH. KULDIP SINGH, JM ITA NO. 4485/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 VARSHNEY BHANDU FOODS PVT. LTD., 388/3, 1 ST FLO OR, MAIN ROAD, KHARI BAOLI, DELHI - 110006 VS DCIT, CIRCLE - 17(1), C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A CCV0594K ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SHRAVAN GOTRU , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 .07 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .0 7 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - XIX , NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING I.E. 05.07 .2016, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO TH E ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 04.05 .2016 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTE R WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 4485 /DEL /201 3 VARSHNEY BHANDU FOODS PVT. LTD. 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICT UM, 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), W E 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 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 & 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. BH ATTACHARGEE & 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 . 4485 /DEL /201 3 VARSHNEY BHANDU FOODS PVT. LTD. 3 7. SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL F OR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05 /0 7 /2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - (KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 05 /07 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR