Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-2’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member to 3242/Del/2015 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 to 2009-10 Karan Singh Sehrawat, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-1/1022, Vasantkunj, Ward-24(4), Civic Centre, Delhi-110070 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AIVPS1409H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. P. D. Taneja, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 14.10.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 14.10.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:
These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 19.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi.
At the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was received. It is noticed that on the last date of hearing i.e. on 24.08.2015 also, none was present on behalf of the assessee and the matter was adjourned for today i.e. on 14.10.2015 and the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36/impugned order/assessment order by RAPD on to 3242/Del/2015 2 Karan Singh Sehrawat 01.09.2015 which has not been returned by the Postal Authority. 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.” 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. to 3242/Del/2015 3 Karan Singh Sehrawat 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, I dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 14/10/2015)