M/S HIMACHAL GRAMIN BANK,MANDI vs. JCTI, RANGE, MANDI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the law aids those who are vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal principles and case law, the tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. However, despite service of notice, the assessee did not appear for the hearing. The tribunal noted that the assessee seemed uninterested in pursuing the appeal.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-appearance of the assessee for the hearing of the appeal, leading to a dismissal for non-prosecution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
आदेश/Order
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.3.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Palampur [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]
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 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 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules
ITA No. 1574/Chd/2017- M/s Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi, H.P. 2
as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38
ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted.
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.”
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.
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.
So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited
supra, we dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.
In the result, appeals of the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the Open Court
Sd/- Sd/- बी.आर.आर, कुमार संजय गग� ( B.R.R. KUMAR) (SANJAY GARG ) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member
�दनांक/Date: 04.10. 2018 “आर.के.”
ITA No. 1574/Chd/2017- M/s Himachal Gramin Bank, Mandi, H.P. 3
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
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
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, DwarkaRajkot4 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of due care and attention in pursuing the...
- M/S. Ruby Gems Private Limited, Surat vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), SuratSurat13 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the ...
- Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi26 Mar 2021Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution, following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was given liberty to pray for recall of the order if they were s...
- Syndicate Bank, Noida vs Addl. CIT (TDS), GhaziabadDelhi15 May 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and case laws.
- Smt. Atro W/O Lekhraj, New Delhi vs ITO, New DelhiDelhi29 Apr 2019Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee's absence indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Following established precedents, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026