SRI NIRMAL KR. NANDI, PROP. OF USHA CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1978/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 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, noting the assessee's non-cooperative attitude and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was repeatedly adjourned due to the assessee's non-appearance and requests for adjournment. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's consistent absence from hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

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

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]

order

: February 07, 2019 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice President

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Durgapur dated 22.06.2017 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 76,655/- imposed by the AO u/s 271B of the Income tax Act, 1961.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 07.08.2018. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and accordingly, the hearing was a djourned to 18.09.2018. On 18.09.2018, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 12.11.2018. On 12.11.2018, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 29.11.2018. On 29.11.2018, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 31.12.2018. On 2 Sri Nirmal Kr. Nandi (Prop. Usha Construction) Assessment Year: 2013-14 31.12.2018, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 07.02.2019. On 07.02.2019 i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non- compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, it 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 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. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th February, 2019.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →