DR SARBAJIT GUHA NIYOGI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-22(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 641/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 October 2017AY 2009-20103 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, observing the assessee's consistent non-prosecution of the appeal and citing legal principles regarding vigilance, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was adjourned multiple times due to the assessee's requests for adjournment or non-appearance. Despite repeated opportunities and a final notice sent by RPAD, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee repeatedly fails to appear or pursue the matter before the tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of 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 (SMC

Before: Hon’ble Shri P.M. Jagtap]

order : October 26, 2017 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata dated 11.01.2016.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 21.09.2016. The assessee however sought adjournment on the said date as well as on subsequent dates i.e. 15.11.2016, 27.12.2016, 01.03.2017, 05.04.2017, 02.06.2017, 05.07.2017 and 17.08.2017 on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 25.11.2017. None however appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 26.10.2017 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dr. Sarbojit Guha Niyogi appeal memo by RPAD. On 26.10.2017 i.e. today none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this conduct of the assessee, it appears 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, 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 27th October, 2017. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/10/2017 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to:

1. 1. Dr. Sarbojit Guha Niyogi, 205A, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata – 29.

2. ITO, Wd-22(1), 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4th Floor, Kolkata - 700016 3. The CIT(A)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →