PUSHPAK INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5357/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 September 2017AY 2007-083 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 and not those who sleep on their rights, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. However, despite proper notice, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for the hearing, and no adjournment was sought. The notice was returned unclaimed by the postal authorities.

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 rather than merely filing it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2), Rule 24 of 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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.09.2017Pronounced: 18.09.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.07.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. In spite of the fact that the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36. The notice of hearing was sent by Registered Post which has been returned back by the Postal Authority with the remarks “un claim”. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

2 Pushpak Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 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:

“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.

3 Pushpak Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 7. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal 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.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 18/09/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →