Mind Life Soul Dot Com (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4571/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4639 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SHEFALI SWAROOP
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. K. N. CHARY , JM ITA NO. 4571 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2004 - 05 MIND LIFE SOUL DOT COM (P) LTD., 90/31 B, 1 ST F LOOR, MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110017 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ADCM9294Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MRS. SHEFALI SWAROOP, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.09 .201 7 DATE OF PRON OUNCEMENT : 12 . 0 9 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.06 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - IX , NEW DELHI . 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 25.05.2017 AND 06.07.2017 BUT THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE S SIDE . T HE NOTICE FOR TODAY S HEARING WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST ON 10.07.2017 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 4571 /DEL /201 4 MIND LIFE SOUL DOT COM (P) LTD. 2 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS E MBODIED 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 THE PAR TY, 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 PUNJ AB & 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 PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO. 4571 /DEL /201 4 MIND LIFE SOUL DOT COM (P) LTD. 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPR A, 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 ITS NO N - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 /0 9 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( K. N. CHARY ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 1 2/09 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR