M/S S.F.OVERSEAS (P) LTD,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 10(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1144/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 January 2019AY 2003-042 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously pursuing the appeal, citing the Supreme Court's observation that the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed for non-appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 were listed for hearing multiple times. Despite previous adjournments and a final opportunity granted, the assessee failed to appear before the tribunal on the scheduled date.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed due to the assessee's persistent non-appearance and lack of prosecution.

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, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

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

Hearing: 15.01.2019Pronounced: 15.01.2019

ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- XII, Kolkata dated 12.03.2013 for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05.

2.

At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. Case was earlier fixed for hearing on numerous dates and the same was adjourned for non-appearance of the assessee and appeals of assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.02.2018. Thereafter on 16.11.2018 vide Misc. Application Nos. 165 & 166/Kol/2018 assessee’s appeals were restored fixing the hearing on 15.01.2019, wherein last opportunity was given to assessee subject to payment of Rs.1000/- to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. On 15.01.2019, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan

3.

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (P. M. Jagtap) (Aby. T. Varkey) Vice President Judicial Member Dated : 15th January, 2019 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to:

1.

Appellant – M/s. S. F. Overseas (P) Ltd., C/o Falguni Mukherjee, Mogra Jangal Para, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712 148. . Respondent – ITO, Ward-10(2), Kolkata. 2 3. CIT(A)-XII, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail) CIT- , Kolkata. 4.

5.

DR, ITAT, Kolkata. (sent through e-mail)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →