M/S. B.D. MITTAL & CO. PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6750/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 September 2016AY 2007-083 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, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessees were informed of their liberty to request setting aside the order by explaining their non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessees failed to file proper challans for depositing Tribunal fees and did not appear for the hearing, nor did they seek an adjournment. Notices sent to the assessees were not returned by the postal authority.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to defects in filing and absence of the assessee. The importance of diligently pursuing appeals.

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 ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 06.09.2016Pronounced: 06.09.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 6750/Del/2015
ITA No. 6751/Del/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s B.D. Mittal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, H.No. 632, Sector-15, Circle-1, Faridabad-121001 Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB8687L : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/s B.D. M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Vs DCIT, Ltd., H.No. 632, Sector-15, Circle-1, Faridabad-121001 Faridabad-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCB8686M Assessee by : None Revenue by : None Date of Hearing : 06.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 06.09.2016 ORDER

These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 14.10.2015 and 03.11.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Faridabad.

2.

In these appeals the Registry has pointed out that the assessees have not filed proper challans for depositing the Tribunal fees. The said defect has not yet been rectified by the & 6751/Del/2015 2 B.D. Mittal & B.D.M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Ltd. assessees. In these cases, the notices of hearing were sent on 25.07.2016 by RPAD at the addresses mentioned in Form Nos. 36 and the impugned orders and the same are not yet returned back by the Postal Authority. At the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessees neither any adjournment was sought. It, therefore, appears that the assessees are 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, “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.”

& 6751/Del/2015 3 B.D. Mittal & B.D.M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Ltd. 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, I 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.

8.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/09/2016)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →