M/S. MA CHANDI DURGA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CC-XXX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 196/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 July 2016AY 2009-20102 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, citing the principle that law assists the vigilant, treated the appeal as unadmitted. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and provide a correct address.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. Notices sent to the assessee were returned undelivered due to an insufficient address. This indicated a lack of 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 hearing and provides an insufficient address.

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 ‘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)-21, Kolkata dated 19.12.2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, i.e. 11.07.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post has been returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with a remark “insufficient address”. The assessee thus has not even furnished its full address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. It appears from this casual and negligent ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 approach of the assessee 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, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →