SAJAN KUMAR BANSAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 430/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2016AY 2008-092 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 due to the assessee's non-prosecution and non-cooperative attitude.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was adjourned twice. On both hearing dates, the assessee or their representative failed to appear, and no adjournment application was filed. 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 hearings. The principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient' in the context of appeal 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 ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 17.12.2015.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by 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 to 10.05.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 10.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. This non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee shows that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before this Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2

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 →