NADHAR KUMAR SAHA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2182/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 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, considering the assessee's conduct and the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

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?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal.

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), Asansol dated 13.10.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 10.06.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 08.08.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 08.08.2016, 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 he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2014 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 08, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →