Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

M/S. Garg Dyeing & Processing ... vs Acit, New Delhi on 31 January, 2018

             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH 'C', NEW DELHI
         BEFORE BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT
            AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
          ITA No. 4355/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

Garg Dyeing & Processing        Vs DCIT
Industries                         Circle-28(1)
G-2, B-1, Mohan Corp.,
Industrial Estate, Mathura          New Delhi
Road, Delhi
(APPELLANT)                         (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAEFG4400A


        ITA No. 4357/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13

Garg Dyeing & Processing        Vs ACIT
Industries                         Circle-28(1)
G-2, B-1, Mohan Corp.,
Industrial Estate, Mathura          New Delhi
Road, Delhi
(APPELLANT)                         (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAEFG4400A


                Assessee by : None
         Revenue by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 30.01.2018   Date of Pronouncement :31.01.2018

                               ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT :-

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.05.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-10, New Delhi.

2. During the course of hearing today, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any 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, "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.

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 31/01/2018) Sd/- Sd/-

  (Beena A. Pillai)                      (R.S.Syal)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                      VICE PRESIDENT


Dated: 31/01/2018
*Binita*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT


                                  ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                             4                 ITA No. 4355, 4357/Del/2016




                                                     Date     Initial
1.    Draft dictated on                          30/01/2018
2.    Draft placed before author                 30/01/2018

3. Draft proposed & placed before the 30/01/2018 second member

4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member.

5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS

6. Kept for pronouncement on 31/01/2018

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.

*