GOSTHA BEHARI DUTTA & SONS,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE-2, MIDNAPORE, PASCHIM MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1442/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 September 2017AY 2004-053 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 noted the assessee's non-cooperative and non-compliant attitude, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal belatedly by 1018 days and repeatedly sought adjournments. Despite multiple opportunities and clear directions, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated adjournments and failure to appear by the assessee.

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 ‘B(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Date of concluding the hearing : September 22, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : September 22, 2017

O R D E R 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)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 14.10.20114.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee belatedly by 1018 days was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 16.11.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 01.03.2017 and 05.04.2017, but the asessee again sought adjournments on the said dates. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 25.05.2017, 22.06.2017 and 02.08.2017, but none appeared on behalf of ./2016 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 3 the assessee on the said dates. In order to give one more opportunity as the final opportunity, the hearing was adjourned to 22.09.2017 with a direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo. On 22.09.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non- cooperative and non-compliant attitude of the assessee, it appears 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, 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 September 22, 2017. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 22nd day of September, 2017 Copies to : (1) Gostha Behari Dutta & Sons, Kuthibazar, P.O. Ghatal, Dist. Paschim Medinipur-721 212 (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Midnapore, Sahoo Bhawan, Post Office Road, Paschim Medinipur-721 101

(3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax ,Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative ./2016 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →