MS. NILA MEHTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3363/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 April 2017AY 2010-113 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for setting aside the order if they could explain their non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order. Despite receiving a notice, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment for the hearing.

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) 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 ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 24.04.2017Pronounced: 24.04.2017

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 12.03.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 01.03.2017 which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. 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, 2 Nila Mehta “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.

7.

So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at 3 Nila Mehta 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 24/04/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →