BANDANA AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1865/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 March 2017AY 2012-132 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 was not seriously interested in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on either occasion. No adjournment application was filed.

What were the issues?

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

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 filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata dated 18.05.2016.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 20.01.2017. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 08.03.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by Registered Post with A/D. On 08.03.2017, 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 she is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2012-2013 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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →