SHRI. DILIP GIRDHAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1)(2), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2559/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 November 2018AY 2015-163 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 held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, applying the principle that the law aids the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on any of these dates. The tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

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, BENCH ‘ C ’ ‘SMC’

Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ

Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.12.06.2018 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing on 19.11.2018. Earlier, when the case was fixed for hearing on 4.10.2018 and 30.10.2018, also none was present for the assessee. Hence we are satisfied 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 appeals 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 appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015- 16 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Nov., 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →