WRI INDIA BRANCH OFFICE,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant. The assessee was granted liberty to request for setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear for the hearing of their appeals before the ITAT, despite notices being sent. No adjournment was sought by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear to be interested in prosecuting the matter.
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.
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 listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These are the appeals by the assessee against the orders dated 28.08.2013 & 30.11.2012 of ld. CIT(A), Noida & ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2003-04 respectively.
During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. In 2 WRI India Branch Office spite of the fact that notices of hearing were issued on 03.10.2016 by RPAD at the address mentioned in the impugned orders and Form Nos. 36 which have not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
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.
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 3 WRI India Branch Office reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
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.
So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals 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.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/11/2016)
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, DwarkaRajkot4 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of due care and attention in pursuing the...
- M/S. Ruby Gems Private Limited, Surat vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), SuratSurat13 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the ...
- Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi26 Mar 2021Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was given liberty to pray for recall of the order if they were s...
- Syndicate Bank, Noida vs Addl. CIT (TDS), GhaziabadDelhi15 May 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and case laws.
- Smt. Atro W/O Lekhraj, New Delhi vs ITO, New DelhiDelhi29 Apr 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
