SMT TANUSRI JASH,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-1(3), BURDWAN, BURDWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1503/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 June 2016AY 2008-20092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's casual and negligent approach and the failure to prosecute the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The notice sent to the assessee's provided address was returned undelivered, indicating a lack of engagement.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to their absence and failure to provide a correct 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 ‘C(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur dated 26.03.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, i.e. 15.06.2016, 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 with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has been returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with a remark “insufficient address/not known”. The assessee thus has not bothered to provide correct/complete address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. Keeping in view her ./2014 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2 casual and negligent approach, it appears that the assessee 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 →