SWAPAN MUKHERJEE,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-54(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 391/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the consistent non-appearance and failure to rectify defects, concluded that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal was therefore treated as unadmitted and dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. Furthermore, defects pointed out in the appeal memo were not rectified.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee, leading to its dismissal for want of prosecution.

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 14.01.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 21.04.2016. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned by the Bench to 10.05.2016 with a direction to the Registry to issue fresh notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by Registered Post with A/D. On 10.05.2016, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 25.05.2016 as announced in the open Court and taken note of by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. On 25.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It is also noted that the specific defects ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2 pointed out by the Registry in the appeal filed by the assessee by issuing defect notice have not been rectified by the assessee. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 25, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →