WINDSOR GARDENS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 722/BANG/2016Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2010-113 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 held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal, applying the principle that the law aids the vigilant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was called for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. Notices were served, but no compliance was received, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, BANGALORE BENCH ‘A’

Before: SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO & SHRI JASON P BOAZ

For Respondent: Smt Swapna Das, JCIT

PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28/1/2016 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 7, Bangalore for asst. year 2010-11.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing today, i.e on 31/5/2017. Notices for hearing sent through Regd. AD at the given address, though served, has also not elicited any compliance by the assessee. Thus it is apparent to us that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal.

3.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal on hand. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGS”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320)

(Del), the appeal is dismissed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for asst. year 2010-11 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →