BINOD KUMAR AGARWAL,PASCHIM MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(1), PASCHIM MIDNAPUR, MIDNAPORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 August 2017AY 2004-20052 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 non-compliant attitude and considered the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was listed for hearing twice. On both occasions, the assessee failed to appear before the tribunal nor filed any adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to prosecute it. The applicability of the principle 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Date of concluding the hearing : August 07, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : August 07, 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)-11, Kolkata dated 16.01.2015, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,06,227/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c).

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 29.06.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 07.08.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 07.08.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this non-compliant attitude of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2015 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 2

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 August 07, 2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →