Sh. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6073/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7111 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM IT A NO S . 6073 & 6074 /DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 10 VIJAY KUMAR, C/O P.N. CHAWLA, ADVOCATE, B - V, VANDHANA, 11, TOLSTOY MARG NEW DELHI - 110001 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 39(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AHZPK2007P ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. JYOTI KUMARI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 03 .0 1 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 03 .01 .201 7 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THESE APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 10.09.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - XXVIII, N EW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO T HE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD ON 20.10.2015 WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHOR ITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 6073 /DE L/201 3 VIJAY KUMAR 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 . SI MILAR 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 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 LORDSHIPS OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477 - 478) HELD ITA NO . 6073 /DE L/201 3 VIJAY KUMAR 3 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, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LI BERTY 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 RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 03 /01/2017 ) SD/ - SD/ - (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 03 /01/2017 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR