M/S COMMERCIAL SALES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 479/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2016AY 2006-072 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 noted the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing multiple times. Despite an earlier adjournment granted, the assessee failed to appear on the final hearing date and did not file any adjournment application.

What were the issues?

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

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(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata dated 30.12.2015 for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 22.04.2016. The assessee, however, filed an application seeking adjournment of the said date. Although none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 22.04.2016, the hearing fixed on the said date was adjourned by the Bench to 04.05.2016 by granting the application of the assessee for adjournment. On 04.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2006-2007 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 04, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →