Sh. Sunny Arora, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6858/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 685820114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SARBHJIT KUM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6858/DEL/2014 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 SUNNY ARORA, A-3/173, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AFKPA1341R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(4), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SARBHJIT KUM AR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .09.2015 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 OF LD. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. EARLIER ALSO, WHEN THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.8.2015, NOBODY WAS PRESENT AND IT WAS DIRECTED THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST, WHICH WAS ISSUED ON 18.8.2 015 AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36/IMP UGNED ITA NO.6858/DEL/2014 SUNNY ARORA 2 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WAS PRESENT AND EVEN NO ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIE W THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA L TD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R 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 R EFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE ITA NO.6858/DEL/2014 SUNNY ARORA 3 REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 47 7-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO O F APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14/09/2015) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 14 /09/2015 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR