Sanjeev Gupta, Hisar V. CIT, Hisar

ITA 5017/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97379 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. A. T. VARKEY, JM ITA NO. 5017/DEL/2011 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 08 SH. SANJEEV GUPTA 166, UR BAN ESTATE - II, HISAR VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR - 14, HISAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A HSPG8891J ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SUJIT KUMAR , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 .0 9 .2015 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT : 22.09 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2011 OF LD. CIT, HISAR . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRES ENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE OF HEARING AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER SHEET DATED 22.05.2015 WHEN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.09.2015 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INTIMATED IN THE OPEN COURT. THIS TIME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED EVEN TO APPLY FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 5 017 /DEL /201 1 SANJEEV GUPTA 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 . 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 A S 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, FA ILS 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 DIWA N 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 . 5 017 /DEL /201 1 SANJEEV GUPTA 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 ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22/09 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - (A. T. VARKEY ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED: 22/09 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR