ANIT PRAKASH KHAIRARI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 822/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 September 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 considered the assessee's conduct as a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles and ITAT Rules, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The notice sent to the assessee was returned as 'not known', indicating a lack of proper address and engagement.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and provide a valid address.

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)-12, Kolkata dated 24.03.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was fixed for hearing on 21.07.2016. Nobody, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has been returned back by the Postal Authorities with a remark “not known”. The assessee thus has not even bothered to furnish his complete address in order to enable the service of notice. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2

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 →