WRI India Branch Office, Noida V. ACIT, Noida

ITA 5810/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6638 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY

Judgement Text

9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM ITA NO. 5810/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 WRI INDIA BRANCH OFFICE, C - 48, SECTOR - 65, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH - 201301 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2, NOIDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AA CW5534A ITA NO. 2058/DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2003 - 04 W UHAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF POST & TELECOMMUNICATION - PROJECT OFFICE, C - 48, SECTOR - 65, NOIDA - 201301 VS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 (2), (INT. TAXATION) , NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAA CW4737B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 .11 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 . 11 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE ARE THE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S DATED 28.08.2013 & 30.11.2012 OF LD. CIT (A) , NOIDA & LD. CIT(A) - XXV, NEW DELHI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009 - 10 AND 2003 - 04 RESPECTIVELY . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. I N ITA NO. 5810 /DEL /201 3 WRI INDIA BRANCH OFFICE 2 SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO TICE S OF HEARING WERE ISSUED ON 03 .10.2016 BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER S AND FORM NO S. 36 WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. 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 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. 4 . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE O F 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 HEARI NG 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 ITA NO. 5810 /DEL /201 3 WRI INDIA BRANCH OFFICE 3 REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AN D 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 EFFEC TIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S 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 REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (O RDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 /11/2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - (SUCHITRA KAMB LE ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 22 /11 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR