Smt. Saroj Bala, Faridabad V. ITO, Faridabad

ITA 5138/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6764 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 02-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 5138/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5138/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SAROJ BALA W/O, SH. ASHOK KUMAR, HOUSE NO. 1351, SECTOR-16 FARIDABAD ADJPB2395M VS ITO WARD-2(3) FRIDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.11.2016 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4/6/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-FARIDABAD. 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 2/8/2 016 AND THEN AGAIN ON 15/9/2016, BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 2/11/2016 WAS SENT BY RPAD ON 15/9/2016 WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RE CEIVED 2 ITA NO. 5138/DEL/2015 THEN. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEA RING SENT ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF FORM NO. 36 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS PASSED OVER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 R EFERENCE, 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) RET URNED THE 3 ITA NO. 5138/DEL/2015 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 PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 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 PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02/11/2016) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02/11/2016 *R.NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 5138/DEL/2015 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 02.11.2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02.11.2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 2.11.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 2.11.2016 PS 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.