MORTEX INDIA,KOLKATA vs. CIT-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 750/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 December 2017AY 2012-20132 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, considering the lack of appearance and the returned undelivered notices, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on either occasion. Notices sent to the assessee were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and notices are returned undelivered.

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, Accountant Member :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 21.01.2016.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 23.10.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 04.12.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 04.12.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D is returned undelivered by the Postal Authorities with the remark “door locked”. Keeping in view all these 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 facts, it appears that the assessee 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 4th day of December, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 4th day of December, 2017 Copies to : (1) Mortex India, 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane, Kolkata-700 007 2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-44, Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700 001 (3) CIT(Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (4) CIT- , Kolkata, (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →