M/S. NORTH POINT CONTRACTORS,JALPAIGURI vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1398/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 April 2019AY 2014-152 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 repeated non-appearance and adjournments, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee consistently sought adjournments for multiple hearing dates and ultimately did not appear for the final hearing. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliant attitude and lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's consistent absence and failure to pursue the matter.

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 ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ)

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 09.04.2018.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 01.10.2018. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 01.01.2019 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D. On 01.01.2019 as well as on 21.01.2019 and 04.03.2019 when the appeal was fixed for hearing, the assessee consistently sought adjournments on one pretext or the other. Thereafter the appeal was fixed for final hearing on 11.04.2019. On 11.04.2019, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non-compliant attitude of the assessee, it 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. North Point Contractors appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed 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 Holkar –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 April 11, 2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →