M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Meerut V. ITO(TDS), Meerut

ITA 6656/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6361 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN GOTRU
• Section: 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 6656 & 6657 /DEL./201 3 ASSTT. YEAR S : 200 9 - 10 & 2010 - 11 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER(TDS), GMTD, MEERUT, G.P.O. COMPOUND, MEERUT. MEERUT. [PAN: AABCB5576G ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHRAVAN GOTRU, SR. DR DAT E OF HEARING : 15.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .03.2016 ORDER PER BENCH : TH ESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 25.03.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - MEERUT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 . 2. NONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS COME RECORD FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSEE. 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 A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. ITA NO. 6 656 & 5657/ DEL/201 3 2 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS TH ESE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION WITH LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE THAT HE MAY MOVE APPLICATION TO RECALL THIS ORDER ON SATISFYING THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHICH PREVENTED HIM TO APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15.03.2016. SD/ - SD/ - ( C.M. GARG ) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15.03.2016 *AKS/ -