Manmeet Singh, Delhi V. ITA, New Delhi

ITA 5741/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7297 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SREENIVASA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO S . 5741 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 SH. MANMEET SINGH, WZ - 178, PLOT NO. 385, 2 ND FLOOR, CHAND NAGAR, DELHI - 110018 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 26 ( 2 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A LAPS9876R ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. A. SREENIVASA RAO , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 .06 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .06 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22 .0 8 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXIV , NEW DELHI . 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36 AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON . THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS, IF ANY. IT, THEREFORE, AP PEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 5741 /DEL /201 4 MANMEET SINGH 2 4 . 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 . CONSIDE RING 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. 5 . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAK EN 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 TA KING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 6 . SIMILARLY, HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETU RNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 7 . 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 TH E APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 5741 /DEL /201 4 MANMEET SINGH 3 8 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETT ING 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 REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRO NOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 /06 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 28 /06 /2016 *SUBODH* C OPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR