ITO,WD - 41(4),NADIA, NADIA vs. NARAYAN CHANDRA BASAK, NADIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 68/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 March 2017AY 2010-20112 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the Revenue's casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of vigilance, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was scheduled for hearing. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to file revised grounds in a concise form, but the Department failed to comply. On the subsequent hearing date, no one appeared on behalf of the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the Revenue's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions and lack of appearance.

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 ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal preferred by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 22.10.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the Revenue was earlier fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 02.02.2017. At the time of hearing fixed on the said date, it was noticed that the grounds filed by the Revenue are lengthy and argumentative. The ld. D.R. accordingly was directed by the Bench to file the revised grounds in concise form as per relevant Rules by the next date of hearing, which was fixed on 08.03.2017. The Department, however, has failed to comply with the said direction. At the time of hearing fixed on 08.03.2017, i.e. today, none, in fact, has appeared on behalf of the Revenue even to explain the steps taken to comply with the ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 direction of the Bench. It appears from this casual and negligent attitude of the Department that it 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on March 08, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →