CHAND SINGH PROP.,HARYANA vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 734/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 August 2018AY 2011-124 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 held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the matter, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The appeal was treated as unadmitted due to non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Pr. CIT. The appeal was adjourned for a hearing, and notice was sent to the assessee. However, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. R.S. SYAL & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI

For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 08/08/2018Pronounced: 08/08/2018

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 behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. It, 2 (Chand Singh Prop.) 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 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:

1.

“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)

3 (Chand Singh Prop.) 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 the 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)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →