Sh. Deepak Jain, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5663/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8247 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: BENCH E NEW DELHI BEFORE SRI R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5663 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 SH. DEEPAK JAIN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 06 624, MODERN APARTMENT NEW DELHI SECTOR 15, ROHINI NEW DELHI 110 085 PAN: AFDPJ7401E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.R.SENAPATI, SR. D.R. DA TE OF HEARING: 01 . 10.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 ST OCTOBER, 2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2013 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A) - X XX I, DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 01 ST OCTOBER, 20 18, INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT REQUEST RECEIVED. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED 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 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 CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. ITA 5663/DEL/2015 A.Y.:2009 - 10 SH. DEEPAK JAIN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6,N.DEL. 2 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH 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 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 LORDSHIPS 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. 7. R ESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST OCTOBER, 2018. S D / - S D / - (R.S.SYAL) (BEENA A PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 01 ST OCTOBER, 2018 * G MV COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES ITA 5663/DEL/2015 A.Y.:2009 - 10 SH. DEEPAK JAIN VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6,N.DEL. 3 DRAFT DICTATED ON 01.10.18 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDER UPLOADED ON FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER