Cane Development Council, Khatauli, Gorakhpur V. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 7094/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7527 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Section: 37

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 S . 7094 /DEL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011 - 12 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KHATAULI, MUZAFFARNAGAR, C /O DS KOHIL, ADVOCATE, F - 06, 1 ST FLOOR, NARAYAN TOWER, GANDHI LANE, GOLGHAR, GORAKHPUR (UP) - 273001 VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A A ALC0278L ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENU E BY : SH. V. R. SONBHADRA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.06 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .06 .201 6 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.06 .2014 OF LD. CIT(A) , MUZAFFARNAGAR . 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY 3 DAYS. HOWEVER, NO APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE NOTIC E OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE FORM NO. 36. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. ITA NO . 7094 /DEL /201 4 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2 3 . THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THI S 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 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 . SIMILAR LY, 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. ITA NO . 7094 /DEL /201 4 CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 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 PROVISO TO RULE 24 OF THE INCOME TAX ( APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963 AND EXPLAINING THE REA SONS FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 /06 /2016 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 13 /06 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR