M/s. Sugan Footwear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4665/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98002 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PRAKASH MISHRA

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 46 65/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4665/DE L/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2005- 06) SUGAN FOOTWEAR P. LTD., 440/7, JAI MATA MARKET, TRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. AAHCS4197E VS DCIT, CIRCLE 9(1), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. VED PRAKASH MISHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2014 OF CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE A SSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 12.10.2015, WHICH HAS NO T YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE M ATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, T HEREFORE, DATE OF HEARING 02.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.12.2015 2 ITA NO. 46 65/DEL/2014 APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE 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 AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 ITA NO. 46 65/DEL/2014 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 ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.12. 15 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/12/2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 46 65/DEL/2014 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 02.12.15 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03.12.15 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 03.12.15 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 03.12.15 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 03.12.15 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 03.12.15 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 04.12.15 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.