RAJIB SAHA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2495/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 June 2016AY 2004-052 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Applying the principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient', the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was dismissed by the CIT(A) as barred by limitation. The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on two scheduled hearing dates and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and cooperate with the tribunal's proceedings.

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’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Date of concluding the hearing : June 16, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : June 16, 2016

O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata dated 07.08.2013, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him as barred by limitation.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 13.05.2016. However none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 16.06.2016. On 16.06.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assesese nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. Keeping in view this non-cooperation and non-compliant attitude ./2013 Assessment year: 2004-2005 Page 2 of 2 of the assessee, it appears that he 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 June 16, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →