SRI VICKY JAISWAL,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2019AY 2013-143 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 treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant. The penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) was implicitly upheld by dismissing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple scheduled hearing dates despite adjournments and notices. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperative attitude.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

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 ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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)-6, Kolkata dated 13.10.2017, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 03.12.2018. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 10.01.2019. On 10.01.2019, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 16.01.2019. On 16.01.2019, none, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assesese, the hearing was adjourned by the Bench to 14.02.2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shri Vicky Jaiswal with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 14.02.2019, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this non-cooperative and non-compliant attitude of the assessee that he 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, we 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 February 14, 2019.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Vice-President (KZ) Kolkata, the 14th day of February, 2019 Copies to : (1) Shri Vicky Jaiswal, 91/2, G.T. Road, Gulpatti, Champdani, Bhadreswar, Hooghly-712 222

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(1), Hooghly, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712 101 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shri Vicky Jaiswal

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →