State Bank of India, Muzaffarnagar V. DCIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 655/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3541 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R SENAPATI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JM ITA NO. 654/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 655/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 656/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 657/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 658/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 659/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 660/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 661/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 662/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 663/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 ITA NO. 664/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012 - 13 STATE BANK OF INDIA, ARYA SAMA J ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR - 251001 VS DCIT (TDS), CPC, GHAZIABAD (U.P.) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AACS8577K ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. S. R. SENAPATI , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 2.02 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 12.02 .201 8 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 02.11.2015 OF LD. CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR . 2. THE NOTICES FOR HEARING IN THESE APPEALS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36/ I MPUGNED ORDER ITA NO S. 654 TO 664 /DE L/2016 STATE BANK OF INDIA 2 OF THE CIT(A) / PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 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 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 REFER ENCE 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 ITA NO S. 654 TO 664 /DE L/2016 STATE BANK OF INDIA 3 DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE T HIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE C OURT ON 12/02 / 2018 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUCHITRA KAMBLE ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12/02 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR