Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, Delhi

ITA 6133/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6806 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 6133/DEL/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. C. M. GARG, JM ITA NO. 6133/DEL/2012 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007-08 ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA W-66, GREATER KAILASH PART-II NEW DELHI AEIPG7579Q VS ITO WARD-23(2), SECOND FLOOR CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2016 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2012 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED ON 4/8/2016, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST O F THE LD. 2 ITA NO. 6133/DEL/2012 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR TODAY I.E. 1/11/2016. THE SAID DATE WAS NOTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS 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 MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 R EFERENCE, 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) RET URNED THE 3 ITA NO. 6133/DEL/2012 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 PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F 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. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01/11/2016) SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED: 1 /11/2016 *R.NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 6133/DEL/2012 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 01.11.2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 01.11.2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 03.11.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 03.11.2016 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.