CYBER ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TRO-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1623/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 July 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 consistent non-compliance and negligent attitude. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2012-13. Neither the assessee nor their representative appeared for the hearing, and the notice was returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's persistent non-compliance and failure to appear.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of 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”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. P.M.JAGTAP & SH. S.S.GODARA

Hearing: 23.07.2018Pronounced: 23.07.2018

PER P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-23, Kolkata for AY 2012-13.

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo has come back undelivered from the postal authority with the remark “left”. The assessee, thus, appears to have not informed its new address to facilitate the service of notice of hearing by the Registry. It is also noted that there was a similar non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as before the Ld.CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings resulting into ex-parte orders. It appears from this negligent, non-cooperative and non-compliance attitude of the assessee that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal. [Assessment 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 23.07.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →