CHANAKYA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2183/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 August 2016AY 2003-20042 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 dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and the delay in filing the appeal. The principle that law assists the vigilant was applied.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 264 days and did not appear for the hearing, nor did they file any application for condonation of delay or adjournment. The tribunal noted the assessee's lack of vigilance in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to delay and absence of the assessee. The principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient' was considered.

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 ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 21.03.2014.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 10.06.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 08.08.2016. On 08.08.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It is also noted that there is a delay of 264 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, no application has been filed by the assessee seeking condonation of the said delay. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2014 Assessment year: 2003-2004 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 →