MD. NAUSAD ALAM,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1489/KOL/2016Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 March 2017AY 2011-122 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, noting the assessee's non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude, considered the appeal unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared on any of the scheduled dates. No adjournment applications were filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence and lack of communication.

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), Jalpaiguri dated 29.10.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee belatedly was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 18.11.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date on the ground that he was out of station. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was again fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 23.01.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 24.02.2017 with the direction to the Registry to issue the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D. On 24.02.2017, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee and in order to give one more chance to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 27.03.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send one more notice to the assessee at ./2016 Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 2 the address given in the appeal memo by Registered Post with A/D. On 27.03.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee that he 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 →