VIJAY KUMAR PRAHLADKA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1255/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 February 2017AY 2006-20072 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, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any adjournment sought. This conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

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

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)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 27.02.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 25.08.2016. None, however, appeared either on 25.08.2016 or even on 24.10.2016 and 12.01.2017, when the appeal of the assessee was again fixed for hearing before the Tribunal. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 28.02.2017. On 28.02.2017, 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 he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2014 Assessment year: 2006-2007 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 February 28, 2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →