M/S STEPHEN VINCOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1101/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 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, noting the consistent non-compliance and lack of interest from the assessee, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for AY 2012-13. Despite multiple notices and opportunities, the assessee failed to appear or seek adjournment for the hearings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute their appeal before the Tribunal, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution.

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 “B”, KOLKATA

Before: SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY & SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT DR
Hearing: 11.07.2018Pronounced: 13.07.2018

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 07.03.2017 passed by CIT(A)-3, Kolkata for AY 2012-13.

2.

On perusal of the record, we find that the Registry issued notice dated 23.04.2018 intimating the date of hearing on 06.06.2018 to the assessee and on such date, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This Tribunal ordered another notice by RPAD on 06.06.2018 and, accordingly, the Registry issued notice dated 11.06.2018 intimating the fixing the date of hearing on 11.07.2018 i.e. today to the assessee wherein we find no compliance on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment filed. 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 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 13.07.2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →