Punnet Chawla, Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5783/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98017 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PRAKASH MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JM ITA NO S . 5783 /DEL/2012 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2000 - 01 PUNNET CHAWLA INDIVIDUAL S/O BAL KRISHAN, 5833 - A, SWADESH MARKET, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 25(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A FWPC1171P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. VED PRAKASH MISHRA , SR. DR DA TE OF HEARING : 01.12 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .12 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 2.08.2012 OF CIT(A) - XVII I , NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING I.E. 01.12. 2015, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST ON 19.10.2015, WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. WE FIND THAT ON EARLI ER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT ITA NO S. 5783 /DEL /201 2 PUNNET CHAWLA INDIVIDUAL 2 THE R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHT S. 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 CI T VS. MULTIPLAN 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 UN DER: 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. S IMILARLY, 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 HO N BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT ITA NO S. 5783 /DEL /201 2 PUNNET CHAWLA INDIVIDUAL 3 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 I N 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 01/12 /2015) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 01 /12 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR