KASHI NATH SINHA,SOUTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 249/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 November 2017AY 2009-103 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, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in pursuing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, and on both occasions, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The assessee also failed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear or provide any reason for absence.

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 BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

order : November 21, 2017 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 9, Kolkata dated 10.12.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 12.10.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 21.11.2017 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by RPAD. On 21.11.2017 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. It is also noted that there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to notices issued Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kashi Nath Sinha by the Ld. CIT (A) which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee by the Ld. CIT (A) by an ex-parte order.

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, 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 21st November, 2017. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21/11/2017 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to:

1. 1. Shri Kashi Nath Sinha, Roynagar, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas – 743331.

2. ITO, Ward-33(3), 10B, Middle Ton Row, Kolkata – 700016.

3. The CIT(A)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →