ONE AD DISPLAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1013/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 April 2018AY 2011-20123 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 observed the assessee's lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on any of these dates. The assessee also failed to file a paper book despite seeking adjournments.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the consistent absence of the appellant and their representative.

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 ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M. :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 13.04.2016.

2.

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 11.12.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.01.2018. On 11.01.2018, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 22.02.2018 with the direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 3 assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 22.02.2018, the Authorized Representative of the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that some more time was required to prepare and file the paper book. The hearing accordingly was adjourned to 09.04.2018. On 09.04.2018, 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 it 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 Holkar –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. Order pronounced in the open Court on April 09, 2018.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 9th day of April, 2018 Copies to : (1) One Ad Display Pvt. Limited, C/o. M.L. Sahgal & Co., Neelam Apartments, 3rd Floor, Flat 3E, 61B, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016

(2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11 Kolkata, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 069 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →