SMT. ARCHANA ANAND KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 841/BANG/2012Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 August 2015AY 2006-072 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 was not interested in pursuing the appeals. Applying the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08. Notice was issued and served, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, BANGALORE BENCH “ A ”

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

O R D E R Per Bench : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Bangalore dt.22.2.2012 for both Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08.

2.

Notice in this case was issued and served on the assessee/authorized representative fixing the case for hearing on 11.08.2015. Today, i.e. 11.08.2015 when the case was called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above, we are of the & 842/Bang/2012 2 opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing these appeals. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS EXPORT TURNOVER NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), we dismiss these appeals for non- prosecution.

3.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.08.2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →