M/S. KANOI PLANTATIONS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 4(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 740/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 August 2018AY 2003-043 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, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance and absence.

What were the facts?

The assessee company repeatedly sought adjournments for its appeal hearing before the ITAT. Despite multiple adjournments, the assessee failed to appear for the final hearing and did not file any application for further adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings and repeatedly seeks adjournments.

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. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

order

: August 29, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 17, Kolkata dated 15.11.2016.

2.

In this case, appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 12.04.2018. The assessee however sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 07.05.2018. The assessee again sought adjournment on 07.05.2018 as well as on 14.05.2018, 23.05.2018 and 16.07.2018 when its appeal was fixed for hearing. The appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing finally on 29.08.2018. At the time of hearing fixed today i.e. 29.08.2018, none 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 during

Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/s. Kanoi Plantations (P) Ltd. the course of appellate proceedings of the Ld. CIT(A) resulting in ex- parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It appears from this conduct of the assessee company that it 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 29th August, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →