M/S RASSICALLANET PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 786/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 January 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals and rejected their request for further adjournment. The appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear for the hearing of their appeals on multiple occasions, despite adjournments. The assessee also did not appoint a representative for arguments and presentation of the case.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's repeated non-appearance and failure to prosecute their appeals warrant dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, BANGALORE BENCH “ C ”

Before: SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT-III (D.R) Date of Hearing : 7.1.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 7.1.2016. O R D E R PER BENCH : These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore both dt.13.3.2014 for Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11.

2.

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when these appeals are called for hearing. It transpired from the record that these appeals are being adjourned on a number of occasions at the request of the assessee, however, the assessee has not so far appointed any representative for arguments and presentation of the case. Even on 6.1.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee and a letter for adjournment was filed in the registry. The hearing of the case was adjourned for today i.e. 7.1.2016. When these appeals were called for hearing, again nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and the assessee again filed a letter in the registry for adjournment of the 2 & 787-Bang-2014 hearing. Thus it is apparent from the record that the assessee is watching the proceedings without appearance and pursuing the appeals. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of these appeals and the assessee's request for adjournment is rejected.

3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeals in the case on hand. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS EXPORT TURNOVER NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), we dismiss these appeals for non-prosecution.

3.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010- 11 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.1.2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →