SUBHAM ENTERPRISE,MALDA vs. D.C.I.T., MALDA CIRCLE, MALDA, MALDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1568/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 August 2016AY 2009-20102 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 seriously interested in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing twice, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee on either occasion. The assessee also did not file any application for adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear for hearings.

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 the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 26.03.2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 16.06.2016. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 18.08.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 18.08.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →