ROHIT MEHNDIRATTA, PANIPAT V. ITO, WARD- 5, NEW DELHI

ITA 5861/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3752 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 5861 /DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SH. ROHIT MEHNDIRATTA PROP. SHAM SAL ES CORPORATION, SHOP NO. 30, 31, PALIKA BAZAR, PANIPAT HARYANA - 132103 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 , PANIPAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A DFPM9745G ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. B. R. MISHRA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.02 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02 .201 8 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01 .2017 OF LD. CIT(A) , KARNAL . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NE ITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18.12.2017 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT, IT WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 05.02.2018. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FOR M NO. 36/ CIT(A) S ORDER/ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAS 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 THE IR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON ITA NO . 5861 /DEL /201 7 ROHIT MEHNDI RATTA 2 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 CA SE 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 OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HE LD 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 LORDSHI PS 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 EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. 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 SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPL AINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. ITA NO . 5861 /DEL /201 7 ROHIT MEHNDI RATTA 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05/02 /2018 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 05/02 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR