ACIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. Vs Consolidated Finvest & Holdings Ltd. H.No. 11/5B, Basement-01, New Delhi-110055
June, 22nd 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `H', NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM AND SH. N. K. SAINI, AM
IT(SS)A No. 19/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 1989-90 to 1999-2000
S.K.Dixit Vs ACIT,
A- 13/1, Central Circle-9,
Vasant Vihar ARA Centre, E-2,
New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension
PAN No. AAJPD9197J
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Sh. B.R.R.Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 18.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2015
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
28.03.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XXXII, New Delhi.
2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. However an adjournment application
was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee stating
therein that is going out of town for a very urgent family
matter and in those circumstances cannot attend the hearing,
no other reason was given. We do not see substance in the
said application and the same is rejected, earlier also whenever
the case was fixed for hearing, the adjournment was sought. It,
2 IT(SS)A 19/Del/2013
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 IT(SS)A 19/Del/2013
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 with the liberty to
recall the order if the assessee requests in accordance with law and Rule
24 of I.T.(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 of the I.T.Rules.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 19/06/2015)
(Diva Singh) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 19 /06/2015
Copy forwarded to:
4 IT(SS)A 19/Del/2013
1. Draft dictated on 18/06/2015
2. Draft placed before author 18/06/2015
3. Draft proposed & placed before the
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk
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.