BANGALAXMI KHADI BHAWAN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-52(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2251/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 August 2016AY 2004-20052 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 noted the assessee's lack of vigilance and disinterest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle that law assists the vigilant, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with an abnormal delay of 2412 days. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing on two occasions and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and the significant delay in filing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of 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)-XXXIII. Kolkata dated 15.02.2008.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 13.06.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing was, therefore, 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. It is also noted that there was an abnormal delay of 2412 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before ./2014 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 2 the Tribunal. 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 →