PRAMOD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 1(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2268/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 June 2016AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted. Following various High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2006-07 was listed for hearing. Despite receiving a notice by RPAD, the assessee neither appeared nor sought an adjournment. This was also the case on a previous occasion.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings despite receiving due notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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 ‘C’, KOLKATA

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

For Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswal, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 28.06.2016Pronounced: 28.06.2016

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata in Appeal No.146/CIT(A)-XX/Wd.1(1)/2011-12/Kol for the assessment year 2006- 07 passed under section 143(3) of the I.T.Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 28.06.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 28.06.2016 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 19.04.2016. In this context, it is mentioned that the notice sent by RPAD has duly been received by the assessee as the Acknowledgement Card is duly signed by the assessee. But the assessee did not turn up at the time of hearing in spite of the fact that the notice has been received by him. On earlier occasion also, the assessee did not turn up at the time of hearing nor even sought for adjournment. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Assessment Year: 2006-07 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.

7.

So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala Assessment Year: 2006-07 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th June, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →