SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 18.11.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi for the assessment year 2009-10.

None is present on behalf of the assessee despite notice for hearing issued at the address given in the appeal papers nor any adjournment application has come on record. 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, “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.”

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 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.