SRI SOUMITRA BHATTACHARJEE,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. ITO, WARD - 49(1), KOLKATA,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 August 2016AY 2010-20112 pages
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 the ITAT Rules, the appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on any of the scheduled dates. The assessee also did not file any application seeking an adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's consistent absence and lack of engagement.

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

Date of concluding the hearing : August 29, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : August 29, 2016

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata dated 11.12.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 27.04.2016. Nobody, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 12.05.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D. On 12.05.2016, again nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee and the hearing was adjourned to 27.05.2016. On 27.05.2016, none appeared on behalf of the assesese and the hearing was adjourned to 28.06.2016. Since the Bench did not function on 28.06.2016, the hearing was adjourned to 29.08.2016 and the notice of the said hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 29.08.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any ./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he 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 →