Indian Technometal Company Ltd., 1107, Vikrant Tower-4 Rajendra Place New Delhi Vs. ACIT Circle 11(1), New Delhi
August, 28th 2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "C", NEW DELHI
Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Suchitra Kamble, JM
ITA No. 5612/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13
Indian Technometal Company Ltd., Vs ACIT
1107, Vikrant Tower-4 Circle 11(1),
New Delhi New Delhi
PAN No. AACCI1192G
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Sh. T.Vaganthan, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 27.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27. 08.2015
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated
19.08.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi.
2. Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 09.06.2015 and
the counsel for the assessee moved an application to withdraw
the power of attorney. The case was adjourned for 27.08.2015
i.e. today and the notice for hearing was issued through
registered post on 14.07.2015 at the address mentioned in the
form no. 36/ impugned order / assessment order. However,
during the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of
the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. It, therefore,
2 ITA No. 5612/Del/2013
appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the
matter, since no change in address was informed.
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 ITA No. 5612/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.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/08/2015)
(Suchitra Kamble) (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 27 /08/2015
Copy forwarded to:
4 ITA No. 5612/Del/2013
1. Draft dictated on 27/08/2015
2. Draft placed before author 27/08/2015
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.