SK. ALTAF HOSSAIN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1456/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 February 2018AY 2008-092 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 consistent lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles regarding vigilance, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The appeal was adjourned multiple times due to the assessee's absence or failure to file adjournment applications. On the final hearing date, the assessee again failed to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence.

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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 20.03.2017.

2.

This appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 07.09.2017. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date as well as on the subsequent two dates when his appeal was fixed for hearing on 14.09.2017 and 01.11.2017. The hearing thereafter was fixed on 11.12.2017, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 04.01.2018 but since the Bench did not function on the said date, the hearing was adjourned to 12.02.2018. On 12.02.2018 i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee Assessment Year: 2008-2009 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 Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I 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 12th day of February, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 12th day of February, 2018 Copies to : (1) Sk. Altaf Hossain, Village-Chatrasol, P.O. Ghole, Hooghly-712 401 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hooghly, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712 101 (3) CIT(Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (4) CIT- , Kolkata, (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By Order

Senior Private Secretary, Head of Office/DDO, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →