Mahima Logictics Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5356/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4640 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEFALI SWAROOP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-5356/DEL/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) MAHIMA LOGICTICS PVT. LTD. C/O KAILASH JOGANI, CA, 299/15, SHANTI VIHAR, OPP. HISLOP COLLEGE LANE, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR. AAKCS0797D VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 11, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MS. SHEFALI SWAROOP, CIT DR ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 31.07 .2014 IN APPEAL NO. 418/13-14 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXI, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER FOR SHOR T CALLED AS THE LD. CIT (A)). DATE OF HEARING 12.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.09.2017 2 ITA NO. 5356/DEL/2014 2. TODAY WHEN THIS MATTER IS CALLED THERE IS NO REP RESENTATION FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 16.06.2016 AND 09.08.2016 ASS ESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THEY STO PPED PURSUING THE MATTER. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO 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 L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3 ITA NO. 5356/DEL/2014 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. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES 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 OPEN COURT ON 12.09.2017 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (K.N. CHAR Y) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12.09.2017 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 4 ITA NO. 5356/DEL/2014 TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED ON 12.09.2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12.09.2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 18.09.2017 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 18.09.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 12.09.2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.09.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.