M/S. SREKNAB SERVICES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1740/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 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 considered the assessee's conduct as an indication of not being seriously interested in the appeal. Following legal principles and precedent, the Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing twice, but no one appeared on their behalf. Notices sent to the assessee were returned undelivered, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to their absence and failure to inform the Tribunal of any change in 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 the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata dated 26.12.2012.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 14.06.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.08.2016 with the 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 11.08.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee 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 had been returned back by the Postal Authorities undelivered with a remark “left”. The assessee thus has not bothered to inform the new address in ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 order to facilitate the service of notice. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it 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 →