M/s. Jai Parkash Garg Education Trust Society, Karnal V. CIT, Karnal

ITA 5439/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6909 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5439/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 JAI PRAKASH GARG EDUCATION TRUST SOCIETY, 1677, SECTOR-7, UE, KARNAL V. CIT, KARNAL. TAN/PAN: AAAAJ 8552H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: VIJAY VERMA, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING: 23 07 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 07 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT, KARNAL. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENC H ON 23.07.2018, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APP LICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FILED. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO A RE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT'. I.T.A. NO.5439/DEL/2014 2 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE FOR NON PROSECUTION. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE ON A GENU INE AND BONAFIDE GROUNDS PLACES ON RECORD THE REASON FOR NO N APPEARANCE, THEN HE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THIS TRIBUNAL FOR RECALL OF ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD JULY, 2018 PKK: