Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
Date of concluding the hearing : April 10, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : April 10, 2017
O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, A.M..: This appeal filed by the asessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata dated 02.12.2013, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.42,436/- imposed by the Assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 09.01.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assesese on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 10.04.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 10.04.2017, i.e. today, none has, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It ./2014 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 2 of 2 appears from this conduct of the assessee that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal.
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 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 April 10, 2017.