Uttranchal State Aids Control Society P.N. Bahri & Co. 10, Convent Road Dehradun Vs. DCIT, Circle-2
June, 10th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH `H', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. George George K, JM
ITA No. 5607/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08
Uttranchal State Aids Control Vs DCIT,
P.N. Bahri & Co.
10, Convent Road
PAN No. AAALU0042J
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjha, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 02.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 03. 06.2015
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
02.08.2011 of ld. CIT(A)-I, Dehradun.
2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing issued on
16/03/2015 was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned
in the impugned order and the assessment order which had not
been returned by the postal authority. It, therefore, appears
that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
2 ITA No. 5607/Del/2011
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
the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but
effectively pursuing the same.
3 ITA No. 5607/Del/2011
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 03/06/2015)
(George George K) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 03 /06/2015
Copy forwarded to:
4 ITA No. 5607/Del/2011
1. Draft dictated on 2/06/2015
2. Draft placed before author
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.