Uttranchal State Aids Control Society, Dehradun V. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 5607/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0085 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO. 5607/DEL/2011 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 UTTRANCHAL STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY P.N. BAHRI & CO. 10, CONVENT ROAD DEHRADUN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2 DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAALU0042J ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJH A, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03. 06.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2011 OF LD. CIT(A)-I, DEHRADUN. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING ISSUE D ON 16/03/2015 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHIC H HAD NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFOR E, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE TH E MATTER. ITA NO. 5607/DEL/2011 2 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 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. ITA NO. 5607/DEL/2011 3 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 03/06/2015) SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 03 /06/2015 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 5607/DEL/2011 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2/06/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 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.