SMT SARITA ARORA,KOLKATA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1272/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 July 2016AY 2011-20122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. This decision was based on the assessee's failure to appear and the undelivered notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear for the hearing, nor did they provide an updated address, causing the notice to be returned undelivered. This indicated a lack of serious interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and cannot be served notice.

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

Date of concluding the hearing : July 28, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : July 28, 2016

O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata dated 14.08.2015.

2.

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed today nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has come back from the postal authorities undelivered with a remark “left”. The assessee thus has not bothered to inform her new address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that she is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2015 Assessment year: 2011-2012 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.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →