SHRI RAKESH KUMAR KAUSHIK,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5722/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 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, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, following established legal precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's counsel had previously requested an adjournment, and the case was adjourned to the current date. However, on the day of the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing despite prior adjournment.

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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 11.04.2017Pronounced: 11.04.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Amit Shukla, JM Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Kaushik, Vs Income Tax Officer, 46, Suchita Complex, Ambedkar Ward-2(2), Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ACVPK7252R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.04.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.07.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad.

2.

Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 15.02.2017 and the ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for adjournment, on his request the case was adjourned to 11.04.2017 i.e. today and the said date was noted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. However, during the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

Rakesh Kumar Kaushik 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.

Rakesh Kumar Kaushik 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 Open Court on 11/04/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →