M/s. B.D.M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad V. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 6751/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7317 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 6750/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 0 8 M/S B.D. MITTAL & CO. PVT. LTD. , H.NO. 632, SECTOR - 15, FARIDABAD - 121001 VS DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, FARIDABAD - 121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ABCB8687L ITA NO. 6751/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2007 - 0 8 M/S B.D. M. CONTRACTOR & CO. PVT. LTD., H.NO. 632, SECTOR - 15, FARIDABAD - 121001 VS DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, FARIDABAD - 121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCB8686M ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 06.09 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 6 .09 .201 6 ORDER THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S DATED 14.10.2015 AND 03.11.2015 OF LD. CIT(A), FARIDABAD. 2 . IN THESE APPEALS THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE S HAVE NOT FILED P ROPER CHALLAN S FOR DEPOSITING THE TRIBUNAL FEE S. THE SAID DEFECT HAS NOT YET BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ITA NO . 6750 & 6751 /DEL /201 5 B.D. MITTAL & B.D.M. CONTRACTOR & CO. PVT. LTD. 2 ASSESSEES . IN THESE CASES, THE NOTICE S OF HEARING WERE SENT ON 25.07.2016 BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS ES MENTIONED IN FORM NO S . 36 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER S AND THE SAME ARE NOT YET RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY . AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE S ARE 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 INC OME - 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 T HE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. ITA NO . 6750 & 6751 /DEL /201 5 B.D. MITTAL & B.D.M. CONTRACTOR & CO. PVT. LTD. 3 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 , RESPECTFULLY BY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, I DISMISS THE APPEAL S FOR NON - PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO REQUEST FOR SETTING ASIDE THIS 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 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE DISMISSED. (O RD ER PRO NO UNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 /0 9 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 06 /0 9 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR