Sh. Surendra Kumar Ahuja, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 6721/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7403 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 2 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 6721 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2010 - 11 SURENDRA KUMAR AHUJA, TARA CHAND TRADING CO. 369, BO NJA, PATEL MARG, GHAZIABAD - 201001 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3), GHAZIABAD - 201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A BQPA6948Q ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.08 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNC EMENT : 22.08 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.09 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , GHAZIABAD . 2 . EARLIER THIS CASE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04.07.2016 AND ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 22.08.2016. THE SAID DATE WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME 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 MA TTER. ITA NO . 6721 /DEL /201 4 SURENDRA KUMAR AHUJA 2 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 E STATE 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 ENABL E 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 AB SENT 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 BU T EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO . 6721 /DEL /201 4 SURENDRA KUMAR AHUJA 3 7 . SO , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS ORDER BY MOVING AN APPLICATION AS PER THE PRO VISO 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 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 /0 8 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 22 /0 8 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR