PARAMOUNT IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6097/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 December 2015AY 2008-093 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 legal principles and precedents regarding non-prosecution, decided that the appeal should be dismissed. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their counsel appeared. The assessee had previously sought an adjournment to file a paper book but failed to do so.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or take necessary steps for hearing.

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 ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 15.12.2015Pronounced: 15.12.2015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Paramount Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 312, Ansal Bhawan, 16, Kasturba Ward-14(3), C.R. Building, Gandhi Marg, New Delhi New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP7279B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonshatra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 15.12.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.08.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi.

2.

Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 24.08.2015 and the ld. Counsel for the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that a paper book is to be filed. The case was adjourned for today i.e. 15.12.2015 and both the parties were informed in the open court. However, during the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

2 Paramount Impex Pvt. 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.

3 Paramount Impex Pvt. Ltd. 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. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 15/12/2015)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →