SRI SWAPAN KUMAR ROY,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 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 noted the assessee's repeated adjournments and failure to appear for the final hearing. Citing the principle of vigilance, the Tribunal treated the appeals as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The appeals were adjourned multiple times at the assessee's request.

What were the issues?

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

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

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 6, Kolkata, both dated 26.02.2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.

2.

In this case, the appeals filed by the assessee were initially fixed for hearing on 15.03.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment of the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 11.04.2016. The assessee again sought adjournment on 11.04.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 18.04.2016. On 18.04.2016, the Bench did not function and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned and fixed on 03.05.2016. On 03.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing was duly given through notice board. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he & 87/KOL./2016 Assessment years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 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, I treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

4.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 03, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →