MSD. NURNAHAR BEGUM,NORTH 24 PARGANAS vs. I.T.O WD - 49(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2219/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 June 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and precedents, decided that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. The appeal was therefore treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear for the hearing of the appeal before the ITAT, despite proper notice. This was not the first instance of non-appearance by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The principle of 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt' was considered.

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 P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 13.06.2016Pronounced: 13.06.2016

MSD. Nurnahar Begum Vs I.T.O., Ward-49(1), PAN: AJTPB 6816H Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Sanjeet Das, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement :13.06.2016 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata in Appeal No. 150/XXXII/11-12/49(1)/Kol for the assessment year 2009-10 passed under section 143(3) of the I.T.Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee on 13.06.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 13.06.2016 was sent to the assessee on 09/05/2016 by registered post with AD and in spite of having received the notice, the assessee did not turn up at the time of hearing nor even any adjournment petition has been filed. On earlier occasion also, the appeal was fixed for hearing but the assessee did not turn up at the time of hearing. It is, therefore presumed that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

MSD. Nurnahar Begum Assessment Year: 2009-10

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.

MSD. Nurnahar Begum Assessment Year: 2009-10 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13th June, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →