SWAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2181/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 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 observed the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was scheduled for hearing multiple times. The assessee failed to appear on the scheduled dates and did not file any adjournment applications.

What were the issues?

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

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 ‘B(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol dated 13.10.2014.

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, therefore, was adjourned to 09.08.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 09.08.2016, 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 ./2014 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 that he 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 →