LEISURE SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1281/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 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 that the assessment was completed ex-parte by the AO and the assessee did not appear before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2012-13 was listed for hearing. The assessee neither appeared nor filed an adjournment application.

What were the issues?

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

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 RAVI

Hearing: 06.09.2018Pronounced: 06.09.2018

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2016 passed by CIT(A)-5, Kolkata for AY 2012-13 wherein he confirmed the order of AO ex-parte.

2.

The Registry fixed the date of hearing of the afore-said appeal on 06.09.2018 i.e. today and intimated the same to the assessee by issuing notice dated 30.07.2018 by RPAD. When the matter was called on 06.09.2018 i.e. today, neither any authorized representative appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment was filed. It is further noted that the assessment was completed in the absence of assessee before the AO u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal.

Year: 2012-13] 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 06.09.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-06.09.2018 *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to:

1. 1. Appellant- Leisure Suppliers Pvt.Ltd., 115, Shree Arvind Road, Golabari, Howrah, West Bengal-711106.

2. Respondent- ITO, Ward-13(2), 110, Shanti Palli, Opposite Ruby Hospital, Kasba, E.M.By-Pass, Kolkata, West Bengal-700107.

3. CIT-Kolkata 4. CIT(Appeals)-Kolkata 5. DR: ITAT -Kolkata Benches

Sr.P.S./H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →