M/S. RAJSHIKHA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
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 appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and pursue the matter. The assessee was granted liberty to request for setting aside the order by moving an application explaining their non-appearance.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 25,25,000/- made by the AO under Section 68 was listed for hearing. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the notices sent to them were returned undelivered.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and pursue the appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/s Rajshikha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, J-52, 2nd Floor, Saket, Ward-15(2), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR7633R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2016 ORDER
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of addition of Rs.25,25,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 as well as the impugned order was returned back 2 Rajshikha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. by the Postal Authority with the remarks “left”. The assessee had not given any alternate address, if any. 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.” 6. 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.
3 Rajshikha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 7. 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, I 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.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 13/06/2016)
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan…Guwahati26 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals we...
- Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs Central Circle-2, GuwahatiGuwahati26 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A), indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside ...
- Boppana Ashok Kumar, Gannavaram vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), VijayawadaVisakhapatnam20 Aug 2025Remanded
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation under the Income Tax Act to dispose of appeals on merits and lacks the power to summarily dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing judicial precedent, it set ...
- Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Surat vs ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), SuratSurat18 Aug 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and failure to provide evidence. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act by not providing reasons and denied a ...
- Vahan Motors Private Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Circle-8(1), HyderabadHyderabad28 Apr 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to dispose of appeals on merits and cann...
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
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
