Paramount Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6097/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 98068 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONSHATRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI , JM ITA NO. 6097/DEL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008 - 09 PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD ., 312, ANSAL BHAWAN, 16, KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW DELHI VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(3 ), C.R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AA CP7279B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. V. R. SONSHATRA , SR. DR DATE O F HEARING : 15.12 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.12 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08 .0 8.2013 OF LD. CIT (A) - X V II , NEW DELHI . 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING O N 24.08.2015 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT A PAPER BOOK IS TO BE FILED. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 15.12.2015 AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT . HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 6097 /DEL /201 3 PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. 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 I NDIA 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 TH E 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 COU RT 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 NO . 6097 /DEL /201 3 PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD. 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15/12 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - (BEENA PILLAI ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15/12 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR