INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE AND HOSTEL SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND,NEW DELHI vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7069/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 July 20182 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order if sufficient cause for non-prosecution is shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the DIT (E). Despite repeated notices, the assessee failed to appear for hearings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite due notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior DR
Hearing: 23.07.2018

PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

The appellant, Industrial Institute and Hostel Society for the Blind, by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2014 passed by Ld. DIT (E), New Delhi.

2.

In the present appeal, notice was sent through RPAD to the assessee for hearing on 31.07.2017 but nobody was present on behalf of the assessee and the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2017. On 28.11.2017 as well on subsequent dates, the matter was adjourned time to time, due to non-functioning of Bench.

3.

From the records, it is observed that the due notice for the date of hearing for today i.e. 23rd July 2018, was sent through RPAD and even then nobody on behalf o the Aseesee has appeared today, therefore it can be easily construed that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal. As it is well settled that the law assists only those who are vigilant of their rights, and not those who sleep over them. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum "VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT". Under the circumstances, keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, as well as the decisions by the Tribunal, in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Limited, 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and by the higher courts, as in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we are inclined to dismiss the instant appeal for want for prosecution and hence the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution, however with liberty to the assessee to seek recall of the order subject to showing sufficient cause, for non-prosecution of the appeal.

4.

In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on this 23rd day of July, 2018.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →