SONU KUMAR BHAGAT,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 63(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1709/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 March 2019AY 2012-133 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 interested in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, citing legal precedents that emphasize the need for active pursuit of appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 was listed for hearing. However, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared before the tribunal, nor was any adjournment requested.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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, “D”, BENCH KOLKATA

Before: SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR
Hearing: 12/03/2019Pronounced: 15/03/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:

1.

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 19, Kolkata .

2.

This appeal fixed for hearing on 12/03/2019 i.e. today. When the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :-

(1). In the case of CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that :

2 Sonu Kumar Bhagat. “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (2). In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their order : “If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” (3). In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as un admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

3.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights; i.e. “vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt”.

4.

The assessee, if so desired, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling this order and explaining reasons for non-compliance etc. then this order may be recalled.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 15.03.2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →