M/S MUKHERJEE & CHATTERJEE ENTERPRISES,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BURDWAN, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 476/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, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, considered the assessee's consistent non-appearance. The appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed due to non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. On each occasion, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment sought. This conduct indicated a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant consistently fails to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

ITAT Rules 19(2)

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), Durgapur dated 27.03.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 18.07.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the aid date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned by the Bench to 15.09.2016 with a direction to the Registry to issue the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D at the address of the assessee available on record. On 15.09.2016, the Bench did not function and the hearing, accordingly, was adjourned to 07.11.2016. On 07.11,2016, the ld. D.R. sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 20.12.2016 as announced in the open Court. On 20.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assesese 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →