JAI JANTA TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3414/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 October 2015AY 2007-083 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 that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Following established legal principles and case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was previously disposed of ex-parte. The assessee applied for recalling the order, which was granted, and a new hearing date was set. However, on the scheduled date, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite the recall of an ex-parte order.

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 ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Hearing: 19.10.2015Pronounced: 19.10.2015

ORDER

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.06.2011 of ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi.

2.

Earlier this case was disposed off vide order dated 10.01.2012. Thereafter the assessee moved Miscellaneous Application for recalling the ex-parte order and vide order dated 04.09.2015 in M.A. No. 173/Del/2012, the order dated 10.01.2012 was recalled and the date of hearing for today i.e. 19.10.2015 was announced on the said date in the open court, this fact is mentioned in the order dated 04.09.2015. However, at the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. It, therefore, 2 Jai Janta Trading Co. 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 Jai Janta Trading Co. 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 19/10/2015)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →