PRADEEP KUMAR JHAWAR,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1573/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 June 2017AY 2003-20043 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 lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals due to non-appearance and insufficient address. Following legal principles and precedent, the appeals were treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee failed to appear for the hearings, and notices sent to the provided address were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and provide a correct address.

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’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M..: These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-II, Kolkata, both dated 26.05.2014, whereby he confirmed the penalties of Rs.2,13,332/- and Rs.2,57,705/- imposed by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively.

2.

In this case, the appeals filed by the assessee were initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 20.03.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was & 1574/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 2 of 3 adjourned to 07.06.2017 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 by Registered Post with A/D. On 07.06.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D has come back undelivered from the Postal Authorities with the remark “insufficient address”. The assessee thus has not furnished his full address in order to facilitate the service of notice. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals 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, we treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

4.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on June 07, 2017.

1.

Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 7th day of June, 2017 Copies to : (1) Shri Pradeep Kumar Jhawar, 4, Fairlie Place, Kolkata-700 001 & 1574/KOL./2014 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 3 of 3 (2) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-XXI, Kolkata, 110, Shanti Pally, E.M. Bye Pass, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-700 107

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →