K.Y. RADHAKRISHNA IYER,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1490/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 April 2015AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal due to their non-attendance. Following the principle of vigilance, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was fixed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared. The Departmental Representative was present.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, BANGALORE BENCH “ B ”

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI JASON P. BOAZ

Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl.CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 23.4.2015. Date of Pronouncement : 23.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Bangalore dt.22.7.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal was fixed for hearing today i.e. on 23.4.2015. When the case was called for hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative for revenue was, however, present.

In view of the non-attendance of the assessee for the hearing fixed in his case, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS EXPORT TURNOVER NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →