CINDRELLA DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 7(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 January 2019AY 2009-102 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 observed that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on either occasion. The assessee also did not file any application for adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite multiple opportunities.

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 A.T. Varkey

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)-16, Kolkata dated 28.03.2017.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 10.12.2018. None, however, appeared on the said date on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 07.01.2019 with the direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo. On 07.01.2019, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the Cindrella Dealers Pvt. Limited assessee that it 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →