SMT. SAROJ BALA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5138/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 November 2016AY 2009-104 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, and following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, decided to dismiss the appeal. The dismissal was due to the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). The case was listed for hearing on multiple occasions, but the assessee or their representative remained absent. Despite notices being sent, no representation was made by the assessee.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal despite the assessee's absence and lack of representation.

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-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. SAINI

Hearing: 02.11.2016Pronounced: 02.11.2016

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 4/6/2015 passed by CIT(A)-Faridabad.

2.

Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 2/8/2016 and then again on 15/9/2016, but nobody was present on behalf of the assessee. Notice of hearing for today i.e. 2/11/2016 was sent by RPAD on 15/9/2016 which had not been received then. It therefore, appears that the notice of hearing sent on the address mentioned in Column No. 10 of Form No. 36 has been served on the assessee. At the time of hearing, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was passed over.

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.

7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 02/11/2016)

Sd/- (N. K. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02/11/2016 *R.Naheed* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on PS 02.11.2016 2. Draft placed before author 02.11.2016 PS

3. JM/AM Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. JM/AM Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS 2.11.2016 6. Kept for pronouncement on PS

7.

File sent to the Bench Clerk PS 2.11.2016 8. Date on which file goes to the AR

9.

Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.

10.

Date of dispatch of Order.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →