M/S HOTEL TARA,BIRBHUM vs. ACIT, CIR-SURI, BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 748/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2016AY 2010-20112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, observing the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, following established legal principles and ITAT rules.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Hotel Tara, filed an appeal before the ITAT. Despite being duly served with notice, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee for the hearing, nor was any adjournment sought. The assessee also did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. The Tribunal had to decide whether to dismiss the appeal due to the assessee's absence and lack of engagement.

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), Burdwan dated 16.03.2015.

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing sent by the Registry by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo is duly served on the assessee, the proof of which is available on record. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →