BRAND VALUE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O (TDS) WD - 57(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1141/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2016AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeals and applied the principle that the law assists the vigilant. Consequently, the appeals were treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were listed for hearing multiple times, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notices sent to the assessee's address were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and lack of communication regarding address changes.

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’ BENCH, KOLKATA

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

Date of concluding the hearing : April 29, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : May 06, 2016

O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against a common order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata dated 28.02.2013 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.

2.

In this case, the appeals filed by the assessee were initially fixed for hearing on 29.02.2016. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 29.04.2016 with a direction to the Registry to issue a notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 29.04.2016, nobody, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D to the address given in the appeal memo has been returned back by the postal & 1142/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 Page 2 of 2 authorities undelivered with the remark “left”. It appears that the assessee has not bothered to inform the change of address, if any, in order to facilitate the Registry to serve the notice of hearing. Keeping in view all these facts of the cases, it appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals 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 these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →