M/S. ACTION ENCLAVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1910/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 January 2019AY 2008-092 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, observing the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismiss it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was an adjournment requested. The assessee had been duly notified of the hearing date.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules

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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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)-17, Kolkata dated 29.05.2017.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 14.11.2018. The Bench, however, did not function on 14.11.2018 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 02.01.2019. On 02.01.2019, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed inspite of the fact that the notice of the said hearing was given to the assessee through Notice Board. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it M/s. Action Enclave Pvt. Limited 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 →