Paridhi Sethi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6031/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82004 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M B REDDY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , AM AND SH. I. C. SUDHIR , JM ITA NO. 6031/DEL/2012 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2002 - 03 PARIDHI SETHI, 53, PA SCHIMI MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 110057 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(3 ), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BUPPS7837H A SSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. M. B. REDDY, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARIN G : 19.11 . 2014 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 19. 11 .2014 ORDER P ER N. K. SAINI , AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25. 09.2012 OF LD. CIT(A) - X VII I , NEW DELHI . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED ON 0 9. 0 6.2014 AND WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TODAY I.E. 19.11.2014 , THE SAID DATE WAS INFORMED IN THE COURT ITSELF. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , NEITHER ANY BODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASS ESSEE 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, ITA NO. 6031/DEL/2012 PARIDHI SETHI 2 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 B LE 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 COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RETURNED THE REFERE NCE 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 N OT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7 . SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. ITA NO. 6031/DEL/2012 PARIDHI SETHI 3 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ( ORDER PRONOU N CED IN T HE OPEN COURT ON 19 / 11 / 2014 ) . SD/ - SD/ - (I. C. SUDHIR ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 / 11 / 2014 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CI T(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 19.11 . 2014 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.11 . 2014 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMB ER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.