M/s. Ganna Vikas Parishad, Budhana, Uttar Pradesh V. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6481/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 648120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARABHJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6481 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 M/S GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD, BUDHA NA VILL & PO - BUDHANA, DISTRICT - MUZAFFAR N AGAR VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, MUZAFFARN AGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AAJG1547J ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SARABHJIT SINGH , DR DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 0 9 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.09 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , MUZAFFARN AGAR . 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . E ARLIER ALSO , WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.07.2015 AND 18.08.2015, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGIST ERED POST ON 19.0 8.2015 , WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY . IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 6481 /DEL /2014 GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD 2 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBOD IED 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. 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 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 PAGE 477 - 478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 6481 /DEL /2014 GANNA VIKAS PARISHAD 3 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I 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 16 /0 9 /2015 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16/09 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR