Mr. Pushkar Chopra, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6106/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4587 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR NEEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.N. CHARRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.-6106/DEL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) PUSHKAR CHOPRA C-1/56, JANAKPURI NEW DELHI AAAPC2668Q VS ACIT CIRCLE 26(1) NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. PRADEEP KUMAR NEEL, SR. DR ORDER PER SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 15.09 .2015 IN APPEAL NO. 418/2014-15 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER FOR SHORT CALLED AS LD. CIT (A)). 2. TODAY I.E. 04.09.2017 WHEN THIS MATTER IS CALLED NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR HIM ENTERED DATE OF HEARING 04.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.09.2017 2 ITA NO.6106/DEL/2015 APPEARANCE. RECORD REVEALS THAT THE NOTICE WAS SER VED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.07.2017 NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARIN G AS 04.09.2017. IN SPITE OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO MAKE ANY ARRANGEMENT FOR APPEARANCE EITHE R IN PERSON OR THROUGH SOME AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IT, THER EFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE 3 ITA NO.6106/DEL/2015 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE 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 AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CA SES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09.2017 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (K.N. CHA RY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 04.09.2017 *KAVITA ARORA 4 ITA NO.6106/DEL/2015 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DRAFT DICTATED ON 04.09.2017 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04.09.2017 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 04.09.2017 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 04.09.2017 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 04.09.2017 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.09.2017 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 5 ITA NO.6106/DEL/2015