2016 (5) TMI 1600 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Pursuit: Importance of Active Participation in Legal Proceedings

Glaxo Smith Kline Asia (P) Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 4 (1), Chandigarh.

The tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Referring to relevant ... Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- As on the date fixed on 12/05/2016, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It therefore appears that assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal therefore appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 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. [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] we treat this appeal as unadmitted. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another [1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. Issues:Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.Detailed Analysis:The appeal in question was filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh dated 09/10/2012 for Assessment year 2003-04. The appeal was adjourned to 12/05/2016 upon the request of the Ld. DR, with the presence of representatives from both parties. However, on the adjourned date, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The tribunal noted the absence of the assessee and concluded that the assessee seemed disinterested in pursuing the appeal. Citing the principle that the law aids the vigilant, not those who neglect their rights, the tribunal referred to the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.Furthermore, the tribunal referenced a similar stance taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) where it was held that if the party initiating the reference fails to participate in the hearing or take necessary steps, the court is not obligated to address the reference. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 returned the reference unanswered due to the absence of the assessee and lack of assistance.The tribunal also invoked the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) which emphasized that merely filing an appeal memo is insufficient; effective pursuit of the appeal is essential. Consequently, in alignment with the precedents cited, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The final outcome of the judgment was the dismissal of the assessee's appeal in limine, with the order pronounced in the Open Court on 12/05/2016.