SOUMEN MANNA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 989/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 August 2016AY 2010-20112 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, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution. This was based on the assessee's conduct and relevant ITAT Rules.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. However, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared on the scheduled hearing date, nor was any adjournment sought. The notice of hearing was duly served.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing without any valid reason.

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 ‘C(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata dated 07.05.2015.

2.

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing fixed on 20.07.2016 nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has been duly served, a proof of which is available on record. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 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. Order pronounced in the open Court on August 10, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →