M/s. RRP Management Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5289/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7338 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO S . 5289 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 M/S RRP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., 15/76, OLD RA JINDER NAGAR, 2 ND FLOOR, NEW DELHI - 110060 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A A CR6246A ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. V. R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14 .06 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .06 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27 .06 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XVIII, NEW DELHI . 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 24 DAYS. HOWEVER, NO APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 5289 /DEL /201 4 RRP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 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 DORMIE NTIBUS 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 UNADMITT ED. 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 APP EAR 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 DIWAN OIL MILL S 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 . 5289 /DEL /201 4 RRP MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I 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 NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 /06 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DAT ED: 14 /06 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR