SANKRITI SALES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE PCIT, KOLKATA-3, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 417/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 July 2016AY 2010-20112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution due to the assessee's absence and failure to provide a correct address.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. The notice sent to the assessee was returned undelivered, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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 ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Date of concluding the hearing : July 25, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : July 25, 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-3, Kolkata dated 30.10.2015 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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 “not found”. The assessee thus has not bothered to furnish its correct/ new address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. It appears from this conduct of the assessee ./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 that it 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, we 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 July 25, 2016.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →