HARVINDER KAUR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4807/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2017AY 2009-103 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 held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed multiple appeals for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. Despite being duly notified, the assessee did not appear for the hearing of the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing despite proper notification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2), Rule 24

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. Bhavnesh Saini

Hearing: 30.10.2017Pronounced: 30.10.2017

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No. 4807/Del/2017
ITA No. 4808/Del/2017
ITA No. 4809/Del/2017
ITA No. 4810/Del/2017

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

ORDER All the appeals by assessee are directed against different orders of ld. CIT(A), Haldwani dated 03.05.2017 for above assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has been notified the date of hearing through Registered Post. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of the notice. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting all the appeals.

3.

The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, to 4810/Del/2017 2 Harvinder Kaur “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), I treat these 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 to 4810/Del/2017 3 Harvinder Kaur 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 by explaining the reasons for its non-appearance.

8.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 30/10/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →