V.G.MANJUNATH,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 349/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 December 2017AY 2012-132 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 absence of the assessee and inferring a lack of serious interest in pursuing the appeals, decided to dismiss the appeals. This decision was based on the principle that the law aids the vigilant.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2012-13. Despite due service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance for the hearing. The principle of 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges' was invoked.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, BANGALORE BENCH “ A ”

Before: SHRI JASON P BOAZ & SHRI LALIT KUMAR

Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order dt.2.11.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bangalore for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. When this case was called for hearing today i.e. ;6.12.2017, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee. This, despite the fact that the notice issued for hearing was duly served on assessee vide the acknowledgement on record.

1.

2 & 350/Bang/2017 3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeals on hand. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th Dec., 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →