DARSHANA SHAH,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2371/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 July 2016AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notice sent to their last known address was returned as 'Not known'.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings and demonstrate interest in pursuing the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 13.07.2016Pronounced: 13.07.2016

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2013 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XX, Kolkata in Appeal No. 35/CIT(A)-XX/Circle-34/2011-12/Kol. for the assessment year 2006-07 passed under section 271(1)(c)of the I.T.Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 13.07.2016, despite the fact that the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD. The said notice has been returned by the postal authority with the remark “Not known”. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee has changed his address and the assessee did not feel it necessary to inform the change of address to the I.T.A.T. On earlier several occasions also, the assessee sought for adjournments and did not appear at the time Darshana Shah Assessment Year: 2006-07 of hearing. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

3.

The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted.

4.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under:

“if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

Darshana Shah Assessment Year: 2006-07 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th July, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →