SH. RAJESH AGGARWAL,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-7, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 767/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 December 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, following established legal principles.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and also did not appear before the ITAT despite notice.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear before the appellate authorities.

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.

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.03.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. It is further noted that even before the CIT(A) the assessee had failed to appear and the impugned order of the CIT(A) is an ex-parte order. It appears that the assessee is no more interested in perusing its appeal. 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

ITA No. 767/Chd/2018- Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Ludhiana 2

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.

3.

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.”

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited

supra, we dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing. Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member

Dated : 20.12.2018 “आर.के.”

ITA No. 767/Chd/2018- Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Ludhiana 3

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →