Mohinder Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 53(4), New Delhi

ITA 7153/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0675 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDRA MEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER ITA NO. 7153 /DEL/2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009 - 1 0 MOHINDER SINGH, A - 6, AMRIT NAGAR, KOTLA MUBARAKPUR, NEW DELHI - 110003 VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 53(4 ) , NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A OAPS0124B ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SH. SURENDRA MEENA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.10 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 1.10 .201 8 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2017 OF LD. CIT(A) - 18, NEW DELHI. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJO URNMENT WAS SOUGHT. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.07 .201 8 BUT NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 01.10 .2018. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO. 36/CIT(A) S ORDER WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PR INCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON ITA NO . 7153 /DEL /201 7 MOHINDER SINGH 2 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. MULT IPLAN 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. 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 SUPR EME 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 CAS ES 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 REASON S FOR ITS NON - APPEARANCE. ITA NO . 7153 /DEL /201 7 MOHINDER SINGH 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORD E R PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01/10 /2018 ) SD/ - (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAT ED: 01/10 /2018 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(APPEALS) 5 . DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR