Shri Anuj Gupta, Noida V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 698/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6806 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SM C - 1 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 698/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SH. ANUJ GUPTA, B - 106, SECTOR - 2, NOIDA - 201301 VS INCOM E TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1) - NOW - 19(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AJPG2385D ITA NO. 699/DEL/2015 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006 - 07 SH. PANKAJ GUPTA, B - 106, SECTOR - 2, NOIDA - 201301 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1) - NOW - 19(3), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A ADPG5224D ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. ANIMA BARNWAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.07 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 .07 .201 6 ORDER THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE S ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER S EACH DATED 23.12 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) - VII , DELHI. 2 . EARLIER THESE CASES WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.02.2016 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES, THE CASES WERE ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 26.07.2016. HOWEVER, ITA NO S.698 & 699 /DEL /201 5 ANUJ & PANKAJ GUPTA 2 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 MATTER. 3 . THE LA W 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 INCOM E - 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 TU KOJIRAO 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 W AS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO S.698 & 699 /DEL /201 5 ANUJ & PANKAJ GUPTA 3 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 PUR SUING THE SAME. 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 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 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 /07 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 26 /07 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR