Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2017 ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 25.10.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08.
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through RPAD, but there was no compliance on behalf of the assessee. Even no application seeking adjournment was filed. The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN”.
Under these circumstances, in my considered opinion assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such I hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, I place reliance upon following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)
2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC). 4.
Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day 24 April, 2017