PURNA CHAND MAITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-27(2), HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 283/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2008-093 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 non-compliant attitude and considered the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution based on established legal principles.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was adjourned for hearing. Despite receiving notice, the assessee failed to appear on the adjourned date and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the 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

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri A.T. Varkey, JM]

order

: May 31, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 7, Kolkata dated 31.11.2016.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing on 27.03.2018. None however appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing therefore was adjourned to 31.05.2018 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing by RPAD to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo. On 31.05.2018, none however has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. This non-compliant attitude of the assessee shows that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal.

Assessment Year: 2008-09 Purna Chand Maity

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 31st May, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →