M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD,MEERUT vs. ITO(TDS), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6656/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 March 2016AY 2009-102 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 regarding vigilance and non-prosecution, decided to dismiss the appeals. The assessee was granted liberty to apply for recalling the order if sufficient cause for absence was shown.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., filed appeals for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. Despite receiving notice, the assessee remained absent for the hearing and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals by remaining absent from the hearing, leading to the dismissal for non-prosecution.

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

Before: SHRI C.M. GARG & SHRI L.P. SAHU

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.03.2016Pronounced: 15.03.2016

ORDER Per Bench: These appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the common order dated 25.03.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-Meerut for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

2.

None is present on behalf of the assessee despite the notice issued to the assessee. No adjournment application has come record from the side of assessee. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

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. 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution with liberty to assessee that he may move application to recall this order on satisfying the Tribunal with the sufficient cause which prevented him to appear on the date of hearing. 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 15.03.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (C.M. GARG) (L.P. SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 15.03.2016 *aks/-

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →