M/S UNISON HOTELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2501/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2018AY 2008-093 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, citing established legal principles and precedents, held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. Despite proper notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing and did not request an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant 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 BENCHES: BENCH “C” NEW DELHI

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

Hearing: 04.06.2018

ORDER

PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.02.2012 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2008-09.

2.

During the course of hearing today i.e. on 04.06.2018, 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 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

ITA 2501/Del/2016, A.Y.2008-09 Unison Hotels P Ltd., New Delhi 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 by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04th June, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →