SH. VIJAY KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6073/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 January 2017AY 2009-103 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 various judicial precedents, 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-appearance and lack of prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A). However, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment for the hearing. Notices sent to the assessee were not returned by the postal authority.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and provide necessary assistance.

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 ‘D’, NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR
Hearing: 03.01.2017Pronounced: 03.01.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM & 6074/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o P.N. Chawla, Advocate, Ward-39(4), B-V, Vandhana, 11, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHZPK2007P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 10.09.2013 of ld. CIT(A)- XXVIII, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through RPAD on 20.10.2015 which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

Vijay Kumar 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

Vijay Kumar 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, we 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 appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 03/01/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →