Chand Singh Prop., Haryana V. Pr. CIT, Karnal

ITA 734/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4781 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARAMITA TRIPATHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 734/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YEA R : 2011-12 CHAND SINGH PROP. M/S. CHAND SINGH L-2, VILLAGE NARA, TEHSIL MADLUDA, PANIPAT HARYANA PAN : AIUPC5612L VS PR. CIT C/O. INCOME TAX OFFICE KARNAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. PARAMITA TRIPATHI, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 08/08/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 /08/2018 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2015 OF PR. CIT-, KARNAL. 2. EARLIER THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30.05 .2018 AND WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 08.08.2018. NOTICE INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED ON 04.07. 2018 TO THE REGISTERED ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING TODAY, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. IT , ITA NO. 734/DEL/2016 (CHAND SINGH PROP.) 2 THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED 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 KN OWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 IT D 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A 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 HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, 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) RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABS ENT 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 PAG E 477-478) ITA NO. 734/DEL/2016 (CHAND SINGH PROP.) 3 HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN TH E 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 08/08/2018) SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (BEENA A. PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: /08/2018 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 734/DEL/2016 (CHAND SINGH PROP.) 4