MR BARUN PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 December 2016AY 2010-20112 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 the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and precedent, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was adjourned multiple times due to the assessee seeking adjournments. On the final hearing date, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee repeatedly fails to appear or pursue the matter.

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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata dated 19.01.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 19.07.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and the hearing accordingly was adjourned to 15.09.2016. On 15.09.2016, the Bench did not function and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 07.11.2016. On 07.11.2016, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the case was adjourned to 20.12.2016. On 20.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 appears from this conduct of the assesese 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →