Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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).
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
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 07, 2017.