POONAM AGARWAOL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-23, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 109/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 December 2016AY 2007-20082 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, considering the assessee's conduct and the principle of vigilance, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, and on both occasions, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Despite proper service of notice, the assessee showed no interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear despite proper notice.

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)-XIV, Kolkata dated 31.03.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was earlier fixed for hearing on 28.10.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 19.12.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee through Department. On 19.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed insptie of the fact that the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee through Department has ./2015 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 2 been duly served, a proof of which is placed on record. It appears from this conduct of the assesese that she 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 →