M/s Indian Technometal Company Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5612/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VAGANTHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JM ITA NO. 5612/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012-13 INDIAN TECHNOMETAL COMPANY LTD., 1107, VIKRANT TOWER-4 RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI VS ACIT CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AACCI1192G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. T.VAGANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 27. 08.2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 19.08.2013 OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI. 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09.06 .2015 AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION T O WITHDRAW THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR 2 7.08.2015 I.E. TODAY AND THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS ISSUED TH ROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 14.07.2015 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIO NED IN THE FORM NO. 36/ IMPUGNED ORDER / ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOW EVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT , THEREFORE, ITA NO. 5612/DEL/2013 2 APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER, SINCE NO CHANGE IN ADDRESS WAS INFORMED. 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 ITA NO. 5612/DEL/2013 3 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 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 27/08/2015) SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 27 /08/2015 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 5612/DEL/2013 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 27/08/2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 27/08/2015 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.