BHARGABI DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1954/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 September 2018AY 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, considering the assessee's consistent non-compliance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, 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. This conduct was similar to the proceedings before the CIT(A), which resulted in an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

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

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 BENCH (D

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Godara, JM]

order

: September 18, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 2, Kolkata dated 29.09.2016.

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 hearing therefore was adjourned to 18.09.2018 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing by RPAD to the address of the assessee as given in the appeal memo. On 18.09.2018, that is today, nobody again has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It is noted that there was a similar non- compliance on the part of the assessee even before the Ld. CIT(A) resulting into an ex-parte passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It appears from Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhargabi Dealers Pvt. Ltd. this conduct of the assessee that he 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 for non prosecution. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18th September, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →