Sh. Suresh Chandra Gurunani, Nainital V. ITO, Nainital

ITA 5844/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5140 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HONBLE VICE PRESID ENT & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-5844/DEL/2014 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SURESH CHANDRA GURUNANI 104, BARA BAZAR, NAINITAL ABGPG9170L VS ITO NAINITAL ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. ANSHU PRAKASH, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 09.09 .2014 IN APPEAL NO. 32/CIT(A)-II/2013-14 PASSED BY THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN (HEREINAFTER F OR SHORT CALLED AS LD. CIT (A)). 2. WHEN THE MATTER IS CALLED TODAY THERE IS NO REPR ESENTATION FOR THE ASSESSEE. MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO TODAY FROM 16 .08.2005. IT, DATE OF HEARING 17.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17.08.2017 2 ITA NO.5844/DEL/2014 THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED 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 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 L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, 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. 3 ITA NO.5844/DEL/2014 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES 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 OPEN COURT ON 17.08.2017 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (K.N. CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 17.08.2017 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO.5844/DEL/2014 DRAFT DICTATED ON 17.08.2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 17.08.2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 17.8.17 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 17.8.17 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 17.8.17 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.8.17 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.