R. N. Gupta & Co. Ltd., Ludhiana vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 957/Chd/2011)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal rests on the following reasoning, which is the court's own and is not confined to the facts. Where the assessee's appeal has been adjourned repeatedly at its instance and the assessee fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing, without seeking any adjournment, it is to be inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the matter, and the appeal may be treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution under Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. The Tribunal further holds, following the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court cited in the order, that a party at whose instance a reference or appeal is pending which fails to appear at the hearing, or fails to take steps to enable the hearing, is not entitled to have the matter answered. Relying on the Supreme Court's observation that an appeal means not merely filing the memorandum but effectively pursuing it, the Tribunal holds that a party who does not effectively pursue its appeal may be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s R.N. Gupta & Co.Ltd. Vs. The DCI T C-55 Circle I Focal Point, Ludhiana Ludhiana
PAN No.AABCR9636F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri. Manjit Singh
Date of hearing : 20/03/2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2015
ORDER
PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.
1. Initially, this case was fixed for hearing on 07/03/2013.
Thereafter this case was adjourned number of times at the instance
of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. Later on, the case was fixed for
hearing on 20/03/2015. However, on today i.e 20/03/2015, none
appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was
sought. I t, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to
prosecu te the matter. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those
who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known
dictum, "VI GI LANTI BUS ET NON DORMIENTI BUS JURA SUB VENI UNT'.
Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule
19(2) of the I ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CI T vs. Multiplan I ndia Ltd., (38 I TD 320)(Del), we treat
this appeal as unadmitted.
2. 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
I TR 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."
3. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of
New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CI T (2008) 296 I TR 495 returned the reference
unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not
any assis tance from the assessee.
4. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CI T 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.
5. So, by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited
supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecu tion.
6. In the resul t, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/03/2015
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 27/03/2015 AG
Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free