SURYA KIRAN BUILD TRADE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4131/DEL/2010Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 January 2016AY 2004-053 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, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. This decision was based on precedents where appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear or pursue the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment sought. The tribunal noted that the date of hearing was announced in open court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to prosecute 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.01.2016Pronounced: 06.01.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2831/Del/2014
ITA No. 4131/Del/2010

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM : Asstt. Year : 2004- Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/s Surya Kiran Build Trade (P) Ltd., Vs ITO, 161, Vasant Enclave, Ward-9(4), New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCS0982M Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 05.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 31.01.2014 & 16.06.2010 of ld. CIT(A)- XII, New Delhi for the assessment year 2004-05.

2.

During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought in spite of the fact that date of hearing was announced in the open court on 26.11.2015 at the time of hearing on the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter. Surya Kiran Build Trade (P) Ltd.

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. Surya Kiran Build Trade (P) Ltd.

7.

So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/01/2016)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →