M/S. ROCKLAND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2820/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 February 2019AY 2010-114 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and precedents, held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter. The appeals were treated as unadmitted due to non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Despite receiving notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not request an adjournment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA & SMT. BEENA A PILLAI

For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R
Hearing: 06/02/2019Pronounced: 13/02/2019

ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals have been filed by assessee against separate orders dated 18/03/16 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-24, New Delhi for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 on various grounds.

2.

During the course of hearing i.e. on 06/02/2019, inspite of service of notice, nobody was present on behalf of assessee nor any adjournment request received. 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 principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and -2819 & 2820/Del/16 AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rockland Media and Communications P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 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.

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.

6.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals of assessee for AYs 2008-09 to 2010-11 for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th February, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) (BEENA A PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dt. 13th February, 2019

 GMV

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →