SITARAM PRASAD,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WD-1(2), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 543/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2018AY 2007-083 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-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and precedents, the tribunal decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was listed for hearing multiple times. Despite repeated adjournments and notices, the assessee or their representative failed to appear before the tribunal on all scheduled dates.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

order

: May 10, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – Durgapur dated 27.01.2016 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 60,245/- imposed by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 16.11.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 01.01.2018 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing by RPAD to the address of the assessee as given in the appeal memo. On 01.01.2018, again none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the case was adjourned to 28.02.2018

Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sitaram Prasad with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing by RPAD. On 28.02.2018, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 10.05.2018. On 10.05.2018, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct 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.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →