Shri Rakesh Kumar Kaushik, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 5722/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3414 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JM IT A NO. 5722 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 SH. RA KESH KUMAR KAUSHIK, 46, SUCHITA COMPLEX, AMBEDKAR ROAD, GHAZIABAD VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A CVPK7252R ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11 .0 4 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 11 .04. 201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015 OF LD. CI T(A) , GHAZ IABAD . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.02.2017 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT , ON HIS REQUEST T HE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.04.2017 I.E. TODAY AND THE SAID DATE WAS NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO. 5722/DEL/2015 RAKESH KUMAR KAUSHIK 2 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS P RINCIPLE 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. MUL TIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4 . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE MADHYA 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 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 SUP REME 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. ITA NO. 5722/DEL/2015 RAKESH KUMAR KAUSHIK 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASO NS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 /0 4 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (AMIT SHUKLA ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /04 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR