Pushpak Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5357/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4414 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• 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: PARAMITA TRIPATHY
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 5357 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 0 8 PUSHPAK INFRATECH PVT. LTD., C/O KAILASH JOGAN I, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, 299/15, SHANTI VIHAR, OPP. HISLOP COLLEGE LANE, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR - 440001 VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 11, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A ECP0091R ASSESSEE BY : NONE REV ENUE BY : SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHY , CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 18 .09 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 . 0 9 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.07 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXXI , NEW DELHI . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 . THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SE NT BY REGISTERED POST WHICH HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS UN CLAIM . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 5357 /DEL /201 4 PUSHPAK INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 2 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THE IR 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 CA SE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS 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 HE LD 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 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 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 LORDSHI PS 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. 5357 /DEL /201 4 PUSHPAK INFRATECH PVT. LTD. 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE 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 EXP LAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 /0 9 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUD ICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 18 /09 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR