CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KHATAULI,GORAKHPUR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7094/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 June 2016AY 2011-123 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, following established legal principles and case law, held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. The appeal was treated as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed beyond the limitation period by 3 days, and no application for condonation of delay was submitted. The assessee also remained absent during the hearing and did not seek an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and does not seek condonation of delay for a time-barred appeal.

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-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 13.06.2016Pronounced: 13.06.2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Cane Development Council, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, C/o DS Tax, Circle-1, Kohil, Advocate, F-06, 1st Floor, Muzaffarnagar Narayan Tower, Gandhi Lane, Golghar, Gorakhpur (UP)-273001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAALC0278L 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 25.06.2014 of ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation by 3 days. However, no application was moved by the assessee for condonation of delay. The Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD at the address mentioned in the Form No. 36.It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

2 Cane Development Council 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.

3 Cane Development Council 7. 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.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 13/06/2016)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →