M/S DELUXE ENTERPRISES,NALAGARH vs. ITO, BADDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/CHANDI/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 December 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and High Court judgments. The Revenue's representative also submitted that the issues were covered in favor of the assessee by a previous Tribunal decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order. However, the assessee did not appear for the hearing despite proper service of notice.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

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 Bench:

The present appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 18.01.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

2.

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. It appears that the assessee is no more interested in perusing its appeals. 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

ITA Nos. 384 to 386/Chd/2018- M/s Delux Enterprises, Solan 2

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 these appeals 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, the appeals filed by the assessee are liable to be dismissed for

non-prosecution.

7.

Even otherwise, the Ld. DR has submitted that all the issues

raised in the aforesaid appeals are covered in favour of the assessee

by the decision of the Tribunal dated 16.01.2017 in ITA No.

677/Chd/2013 in the own case of the assessee.

ITA Nos. 384 to 386/Chd/2018- M/s Delux Enterprises, Solan 3

In view of this, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court immediately on completion of hearing.

Sd/- Sd/- ( बी , आर . आर . कुमार / B.R.R. KUMAR) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य /Judicial Member Dated : 28.01.2019 “आर.के.”

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 →