M/S. PINKEY RUBBER UDHYOG (P) LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6179/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 February 2016AY 2007-084 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 the principle that law aids the vigilant, decided to treat the appeal as un-admitted. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal effectively.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A). However, on the date of hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal, nor was any adjournment sought.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the case.

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.

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

Hearing: 16.12.2015Pronounced: 12.02.2016

ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.08.203 of CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing today, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We find that on earlier occasion, when the case was listed the matter was adjourned at the request of the 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 un-admitted.

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 the appeal for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →