Sh. Rajiv Nigam, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5689/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2911 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AASISH MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-1, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM ITA NOS. 5689/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YE AR : 2007-08 RAJIV NIGAM, C/O DR. RAVI GUPTA, E-6A, LGF, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI. AABPN8604L VS ITO, WARD 37(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AFWPC1171P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AASISH MOHANTY , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.01.2016 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2015 OF CIT(A)-20, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING I.E. 20.01.2016, NO BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS S ENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 20.11.2015, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITY. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LI STED THE ITA NO. 5689/DEL/2015 2 MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 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 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, 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) RETURNED 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 PAG E 477-478) ITA NO. 5689/DEL/2015 3 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF 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 20.01.2015 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 20.01.2015 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 5689/DEL/2015 4 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 01.12 .2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01.12 .2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 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.