M/s Partap Silicamet (P) Ltd., 101, Sewak Chamber-I, 2099/38, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), New Delhi
November, 20th 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. I. C. Sudhir, JM
ITA No. 4808/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year: 2007-08
M/s Partap Silicamet (P) Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer,
101, Sewak Chamber-I, Ward-14(2),
2099/38, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
PAN No. AADCP3715D
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Sh. M. B. Reddy, CIT, DR
Date of Hearing : 19.11.2014 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2014
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 25.8.2010 of
ld. CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi.
2. Earlier this case was fixed on 09.06.2014 and was adjourned for
today i.e. 19.11.2014 since the ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the paper
book on the said date and the date was announced in the open Court in the
presence of both the parties. However, during the course of hearing,
neither anybody was present on behalf of the assessee nor the adjournment
was sought. 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,
2 ITA No. 4808/Del/2010
Partap Silicamet (P) Ltd.
"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
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.
7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra,
we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
3 ITA No. 4808/Del/2010
Partap Silicamet (P) Ltd.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/11/2014).
(I. C. Sudhir) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
1. Draft dictated on 19.11.2014 PS
2. Draft placed before author 19.11.2014 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.