M/S. INLAND SALES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2018AY 2012-133 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, considered the assessee's non-compliant attitude. The appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but the assessee failed to appear on all occasions. Despite repeated adjournments and attempts to notify the assessee, no representation was made.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's persistent absence and lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

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 30, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 5, Kolkata dated 09.12.2016.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing on 04.04.2018. The assessee however sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 21.05.2018. On 21.05.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 30.05.2018 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 30.05.2018, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Inland Sales Pvt. Ltd. adjournment has been filed. It appears from the non-compliant attitude of the assessee that he 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 30th May, 2018.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →