KAILASH EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6483/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 20183 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, treated the appeals as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance. The appeals were dismissed as the assessee failed to pursue them effectively.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against an order of the DIT(E). Despite proper service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing, nor was any adjournment request made.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution by the appellant. The importance of an appellant actively pursuing their appeal.

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 BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI

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

Hearing: 02.07.2018Pronounced: 02.07.2018

ORDER

PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by Ld.DIT(E), New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing today i.e. on 02.07.2018, inspite of service of notice, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment request received. It therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue 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 these appeals as unadmitted.

& 6484/Del/2014 Kailash Educational & Charitable Society vs. DIT(Exemptions), New Delhi 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.

Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →