PUNNET CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5783/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 December 2015AY 2000-013 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 noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. On the date of hearing, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment sought. This was not the first instance of the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the 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: 01.12.2015Pronounced: 01.12.2015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Punnet Chawla Individual Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income S/o Bal Krishan, 5833-A, Tax, Circle-25(1), Swadesh Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFWPC1171P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22.08.2012 of CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi.

2.

During the course of hearing i.e. 01.12.2015, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through Registered Post on 19.10.2015, which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. We find that on earlier occasion, when the case was listed the matter was adjourned at 2 Punnet Chawla Individual 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 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 3 Punnet Chawla Individual 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. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/12/2015)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →