M/S. SAKTIDHAM ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2513/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2019AY 2013-142 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, considering the assessee's non-compliant attitude and the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on either occasion. Despite proper service of notice, the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite proper notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, KOLKATA BENCH (SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, KZ]

order : May 07, 2019 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata dated 03.10.2018.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 01.04.2019. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 07.05.2019 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by RPAD. On 07.05.2019 i.e. today, none however has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed in spite of the fact that notice of the said hearing send to the assessee by RPAD was duly served, the proof of which is available on record. Keeping in view this non-compliant attitude of the assessee, it appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Saktidham Enclave Pvt. Ltd.

3.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →