SPRING ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1570/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 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 noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles and precedents, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of three days and failed to comply with the ITAT Registry's notices. No representative appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and comply with procedural requirements.

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 “D”, KOLKATA

Hearing: 03.04.2019Pronounced: 03.04.2019

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by CIT(A)-18, Kolkata for AY 2012-13. No one was appeared on behalf of the assessee.

2.

We find that the assessee filed this appeal with a delay of three days and no petition to condone such delay was filed. The Registry, ITAT, Kolkata Benches raised an objection to that effect and issued a defective notice dated 24.07.2018 but, however, the said defect has not been complied so far. The Registry, ITAT, Kolkata Benches issued another notice dated 05.03.2019 to the assessee intimating the date of fixation of hearing on 03.04.2019 i.e. today by RPAD. When the matter was called on 03.04.2019 i.e. today, neither any authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. 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 03.04.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →