Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI
Before: Smt. Diva Singh, JM & Shri O.P.Kant, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-I’, NEW DELHI Before Smt. Diva Singh, JM And Shri O.P.Kant, AM Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Apex Real Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT 1st Piyush Global i, Plot No. 5, Cent. Circle 1 YMCC Chowk, NH-2, Main Mathur Faridabad Road, Faridabad Faridabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAFCA7751G Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2016 ORDER Per O.P. Kant, AM :
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11.10.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-III, Gurgaon.
Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 04.01.2016 and was adjourned for 25.02.2016. However, during the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, 2 Apex Real Projects (India) P. Ltc. “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.
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.
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 the appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add 3 Apex Real Projects (India) P. Ltc. that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be liberty to pray for recall of this order by moving in appropriate petition. The coordinate bench, considering the petition if so moved, if so satisfied with explanation, may recall this order. The said order was pronounced in the open court in presence of the parties.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 09/03/2016)