MADHU JOSHI,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5982/DEL/2017Status: FixedITAT Delhi04 June 2018AY 2012-133 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 the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee was informed they could request the order be set aside by explaining their non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear for the hearing of their appeals before the ITAT, nor did they seek an adjournment. This was despite the case being adjourned once previously at the assessee's counsel'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) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, Rule 24 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963

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 ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 04.06.2018Pronounced: 04.06.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 5981/Del/2017
ITA No. 5982/Del/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 07.06.2017 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 these cases were fixed for hearing on 08.05.2018 and on the request of ld. Counsel for the assessee, the cases were adjourned for today i.e. 04.06.2018. The date of hearing was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of both the parties. 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 & 5982/Del/2017 2 Madhu Joshi 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) 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 appeals 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 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and explaining the reasons for its non-appearance. & 5982/Del/2017 3 Madhu Joshi 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 04/06/2018)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →