BMC ELECTROPLAST PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1782/KOL/2014Status: PendingITAT Kolkata27 March 2017AY 2005-062 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 found the assessee to be exhibiting a casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal which was repeatedly adjourned by the Tribunal due to the assessee's requests. On the final hearing date, the assessee again sought adjournment, but no authorized representative appeared to support the request.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal due to the assessee's failure to prosecute it diligently after multiple adjournments.

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

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 07.02.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee belatedly was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 14.06.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 11.08.2016. The asessee, however, again sought adjournment on 11.08.2016 as well as on 02.11.2016, 05.12.2016, 27.01.2017 and 03.03.2017 on one pretext or the other when its appeal was fixed for hearings before the Tribunal. In order to give one more opportunity, the appeal of the assessee was fixed for final hearing on 27.03.2017. On 27.03.2017, i.e. today, the assessee, however, has appeared and sought adjournment on the ground that his Authorized Representative is out of station. No person authorized by the assesese to seek adjournment, ./2014 Assessment year: 2005-2006 Page 2 of 2 however, has appeared at the time of hearing to support and substantiate the application filed for adjournment nor any documentary evidence is placed on record in support. Keeping in view this casual and negligent attitude of the assessee, it appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal 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, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →