ARUN KUMAR PODDAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 44(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1094/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 September 2016AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed the assessee's conduct indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeals. Applying the principle of vigilance, the appeals were treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals for assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10. The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments for the hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated adjournments and lack of appearance by the assessee.

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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Bench: These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three separate orders, all dated 19.02.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata for A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009- 10.

2.

In this case, the appeals filed by the assessee were initially fixed for hearing on 27.04.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 13.06.2016. The assessee again sought adjournment on 13.06.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 22.08.2016. On 22.08.2016, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the case was finally adjourned to 14.09.2016. On 14.09.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been , 1095 & 1096/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2007-2008, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals 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, we treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

4.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on September 14, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →