MR. CHANDRA PRAKASH CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4220/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 September 2018AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment sought. This was despite the case being previously adjourned on the assessee's request.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing. The importance of effectively pursuing an appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2), Rule 24

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Smt. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.09.2018Pronounced: 06.09.2018

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is appeal by the assessee against the order dated 10.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Dehradun.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 19.06.2018 and the case was adjourned on the written request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The date of hearing was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of both the parties and the date was noted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, which is apparent from the noting on the request for adjournment dated 19.06.2018 placed on record. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

Chandra Prakash Chaudhary 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 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. 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 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.

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

Chandra Prakash Chaudhary of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and explaining the reasons for its non-appearance.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 06/09/2018)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →