PURNIMA GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 245/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 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 that the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of vigilance and considering relevant ITAT rules and High Court judgments, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was scheduled for hearing on two occasions. On both dates, the assessee failed to appear and did not file any adjournment application, despite receiving due notice.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite due 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)-7, Kolkata dated 06.01.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was earlier fixed for hearing on 27.10.2016. 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: 2010-2011 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 19, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →