Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
454120114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-11-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
G
Next Hearing Date
31-05-2017
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
01-08-2013
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 4541 /DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2005 - 06 SUMANGALAM SEWA AIVAM EDU CATIONAL SAMITI, PLOT NO. 11, SECTOR - 6 (NEAR WATER TANK), GHAZIABAD VS ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 2, GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAETS1949Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. ANIMA BARNWAR , SR. DR D ATE OF HEARING : 26 .11 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .11 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2013 OF LD. CIT (A) , GHAZIABAD . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING I.E. 26 .11 .2015, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO I.E. 16.07.2015 , WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S C OUNSEL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEAR S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 4541 /DEL /201 3 SUMANGALAM SEWA AIVAM EDUCATIONAL SAMITI 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 . CONSIDERIN G 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 THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKIN G 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) RETURNE D 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 A PPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 4541 /DEL /201 3 SUMANGALAM SEWA AIVAM EDUCATIONAL SAMITI 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 /11 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 /11 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FO RWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
