GOLDENLEAP AGENCY PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKAJTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1260/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 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 noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an ex-parte assessment order. The ITAT fixed a hearing date and informed the assessee, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment sought.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or seek adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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 “A”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. P.M.JAGTAP & SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVIvs

Hearing: 05.09.2018Pronounced: 07.09.2018

ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.10.2016 passed by CIT(A)-5, Kolkata for AY 2012-013 wherein he confirmed the additions made by the AO ex-parte.

2.

The Registry fixed the date of hearing of appeal on 05.09.2018 and intimated the same to the assessee by its letter dated 30.07.2018 by RPAD. Today i.e. 05.09.2018, neither any authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. Further, it is noted from the record that for non-compliance, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal 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 (Assessment Year 2012-13) 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 07.09.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →