What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not vigilant in pursuing the appeal and had not cured the defects. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed in limine.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. The assessee had paid insufficient appeal fee and failed to cure the defects despite receiving notices which were returned as refused.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed in limine for non-prosecution and failure to cure defects, despite the assessee's liberty to seek recall.

Gurlabh Rai Batra S/ Sham Lal… vs ITO | ITAT Amritsar 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 03.04.2018Pronounced: 12.04.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.224(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2010-11

Gurlabh Rai Batra Vs. Income Tax Officer S/o Sham Lal Batra Ward-II(2), Muktsar Kotkapura Road, Muktsar PAN:ABLPB1793P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (DR)

Date of hearing: 03.04.2018 Date of pronouncement: 12.04.2018

ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM:

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant, on feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda, in appeal No.289/CIT(A)/BTI/15-16, by which the Ld. CIT(A) on non- prosecution dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

ITA No.224/Asr/2017 (A.Y.2010-11) 2 Gurlabh Rai Batra, Muktsar vs. ITO

In the instant case, the asseee has paid Appeal fee to the tune of Rs. 500/- only wheas the requisite Appeal fee is 10000/- and there is deficiency of 9500/- and communication of the defect was sent to the Asseeee and notices have been issued to address given in Form no. 36 of the appeal, for fixing the appeal for hearing through speed post on 30.08.2017, 01.01.2018 & 03.04.2018. However, none of the notices have been served through speed post as the same have been returned by the postal department with remarks “refused" {returned to sender}.

Till date neither the defects has been cured by the Assessee nor services of notices have been effected and in the aforesaid eventuality, we do not have option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. It is trite to say that pristine maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt, which defines that Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, has appropriate application in the instant case, because it seems that the assessee is not interested to pursue his appeal reason best known to him

On the aforesaid observation and circumstances, the appeal of the assessee in liable to be dismissed in limine.

However, the assessee shall be at liberty to pray for recall of order by curing the defect and explaining the reason for non- prosecution of the appeal.

ITA No.224/Asr/2017 (A.Y.2010-11) 3 Gurlabh Rai Batra, Muktsar vs. ITO

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.04.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 12.04.2018

/PK/ Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) Gurlabh Rai Batra, Muktsar (2) The ITO, Ward-II(2), Muktsar (3) The CIT(A), Bathinda (4) The CIT concerned (5) The SR DR, I.T.A.T., Amritsar True copy By order

GURLABH RAI BATRA S/ SHAM LAL BATRA,MUKATSAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II(2), MUKATSAR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments