B. P. AGARWAL (HUF),KOLKATA vs. THE ITO, WD-43(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1414/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 March 2017AY 2009-20102 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 that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee sought an adjournment on the first hearing date and failed to appear on the subsequent date without filing any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal.

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

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata dated 15.01.2014 passed ex-parte, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assesese for non- prosecution.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 27.02.2017. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 29.03.2017 as announced in the open Court. On 29.03.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →