RUDRAPRIYA BARTER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 13(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 887/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 April 2019AY 2012-132 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 law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. On the date of hearing, neither the assessee's representative appeared nor was an adjournment sought.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or seek adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules

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 “A”, KOLKATA

Hearing: 07.02.2019Pronounced: 30.04.2019

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by CIT(A)-5, Kolkata for AY 2012-13.

2.

When the matter was called on 07.02.2019, neither any authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal.

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, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →