M/s. Pinkey Rubber Udhyog (P) Ltd., Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6179/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6947 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SANBHAD RA

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 61 79/DEL/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6179/DE L/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007- 08) PINKEY RUBBER UDHYOG P. LTD., C-20-21, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE HATHRAS, U.P. AAACP1518K VS ITO, WARD 14(2), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. V.R. SANBHADRA, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.08.203 OF CIT(A)-XVII, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOU RNMENT WAS SOUGHT. WE FIND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, WHEN THE CASE WAS LISTED THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. DATE OF HEARING 16.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.02.2016 2 ITA NO. 61 79/DEL/2013 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO 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 LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, 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. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 3 ITA NO. 61 79/DEL/2013 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.2.2 016 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12.02.2016 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 21.12.15 4 ITA NO. 61 79/DEL/2013 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 28.12.15 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 12.2.16 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 12.2.16 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.2.16 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.