M/S Deepak Fastners Ltd., Ludhiana vs Assessee

M/s Deepak Fasteners Ltd., Vs. The Addl. C IT, Range-1, Ludhiana Ludhiana

PAN No. AAACD6282G

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.K. Gupta

Date of hearing : 03.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2015

ORDER

PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.

The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2013

passed by the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana.

2. Initiall y, this case was fixed for hearing on 20.08.2013 but was adjourned

to 17.10.2013 at the request of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Thereafter, on

many occasions this case was fixed for hearing but time and again it was

adjourned either at the request of the counsel of the assessee or for the reason

that Bench did not function on that day. Later on, the case wax fixed for

hearing on 03.06.2015. However, on today i.e. 03.06.2015, none appeared on

behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought. It, therefore,

appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter. 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 DORM IENTIBUS

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 2

considered in the case of C IT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we

treat this appeal as unadmitted.

3. 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."

4. Similarl y, 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.

5. 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 effectivel y pursuing the

same.

6. So, by respectfull y following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we

dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.06.2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 3 r d June, 2015 Rkk Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR 3