MRS. JAYASHREE N BILGIKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3)(3), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 923/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 July 2019AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee appeared not interested in pursuing the appeal. Applying the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved due to an incomplete address.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and unserved notice, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC-A’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ

O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bangalore, dated 28.02.2019 for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing today i.e., 04.07.2019. It is seen from the record that the notice fixing hearing today sent by RPAD by the Registry has been returned unserved with the noting “incomplete address”. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as laid out above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.

3.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal on hand. 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 SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →