IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH 'B', CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos.433 to 439 /Chd/2014
(Assessment Years : 2004-05 to 2010-11)
Mala Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T
SCO 98-99, Sub City Centre, Central Circle II
Sector 34, Chandigarh. Chandigarh.
PAN: AABCN0099B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri Manjit Singh, DR
Date of hearing : 16.02.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2015
O R D E R
PER BENCH :
All the appeals by the assessee are directed against the
different orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)(Central), Gurgaon dated 28.2.2014 for the above
assessment years.
2. The record reveals that earlier the notice was served
upon the assessee and the appeals were adjourned on the
request of the learned counsel for assessee. Thereafter the
appeals were again taken up for hearing and the assessee was
notified the date of hearing through registered post. The
registered post did not return back to the office of the
2
Tribunal and, therefore, deemed to be served upon the
assessee in ordinary course. But despite service of notice,
none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing
of the appeals. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is no
more interested in prosecuting the appeals. Therefore, the
appeals of the assessee are liable to be dismissed. The laws
aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their
rights. The principle is embodied as well known dictum,
‘VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT’.
Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of
Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered
in 38 ITD 320 (Del) in the case of CIT v Multiplan India Ltd.,
we treat these appeals as unadmitted.
3. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble M.P. High Court
in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v CWAT 223 ITR
480 wherein it has been held as under:-
” I f t h e p a r t y , a t wh o s e i n s t a n c e t h e r e f e r e n c e i s
made, f ails to appear at the hearing, or f ails in
taking steps f or preparation of the paper books
so as to enable hearing of the ref erence, the
c o u r t i s n o t b o u n d t o a n s we r t h e r e f e r e n c e . ”
4. 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.
5. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT v B.N. Bhattarchargee And Another 118 ITR 461 at page
3
477-78 held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the
memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
6. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases
cited (supra), we dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee for
non prosecution.
7. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are
dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of
February, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 16 t h February, 2015
*Rati*
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.
Assistant Registrar,
ITAT, Chandigarh
