M/s. South Asian Hospitality Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5966/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5285 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVIN CHANDRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. KULDIP SINGH , JM ITA NO. 5966 /DEL/201 5 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2005 - 06 ITA NO. 5967/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 M/S SOUTH ASIAN HOSPITALITY SERVICES (P) LTD., 40/43, SECOND FLOOR, CHITRANJAN PARK, NEW DELHI VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A GCS7752N ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. NAVIN CHANDRA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03 .08 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 . 0 8 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER EACH DATED 12.01.2015 OF LD. CIT(A) - 30 , NEW DELHI . 2. EARLIER THESE T WO APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.06.2017 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. DR, THE CASE WAS ADJ OURNED FOR 03.08.2017 I.E. TODAY AND BOTH PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT . HOWEVER, D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NOS. 5966 & 5967 /DEL /201 5 SOUTH ASIAN HOSPITALITY SERVICES P. LTD. 2 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 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 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 COUR T 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 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. ITA NOS. 5966 & 5967 /DEL /201 5 SOUTH ASIAN HOSPITALITY SERVICES P. LTD. 3 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE 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 EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 /0 8 /2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( KULDIP SINGH ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DAT ED: 03 /08 /2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR