sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
 uresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.

M/s Dentsply India (P) Ltd. Plot No. 358, Fies, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), New Delhi
July, 22nd 2015
               DELHI BENCH `I-1', NEW DELHI
     Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. C. M. Garg, JM
             ITA No. 4387/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07
M/s Dentsply India (P) Ltd.      Vs     Income Tax Officer,
Plot No. 358, FIES, Patparganj          Ward-10(1),
Industrial Area,                        New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                             (RESPONDENT)
                 Assessee by : None
                 Revenue by : Ms. Y. Kakkar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 15.07.2015          Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2015


     This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
27.08.2010 passed by the ITO, Ward 10(1), New Delhi, on
the direction of the DRP-I, New Delhi vide order dated
03.06.2010 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2.   At the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the
assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Earlier, this case was
fixed time to time and adjourned on the request of the Authorized
Representative, namely, Deloitte Haskins & Sells. Last time this case
was fixed for hearing on 08.05.2014 and the ld. Counsel for the
assessee sought adjournment, the case was adjourned sine die.
                                   2                   ITA No.4387 /Del/2010
                                                       Dentsply India (P) Ltd.

However, a fresh notice of hearing on today i.e. 15.07.2015, was
issued to the assessee on 28.04.2015 which has not been returned by
the Postal Authority, so it is presumed that the assessee has been
served. 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,
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

5.    Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case
of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the
                                   3                   ITA No.4387 /Del/2010
                                                       Dentsply India (P) Ltd.

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.

8.      However, the assessee may request for recalling of the
order as provided under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules
(Tribunal), 1963.

9.      In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 16/07/2015).

             Sd/-                                   Sd/-
  (C. M. Garg)                                  (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 16/07/2015
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
                                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions