SRI RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 48(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 272/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 April 2016AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal due to their lack of diligence. The appeal was treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notice sent to their address was returned undelivered. The assessee also failed to inform the registry of a correct address.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear and cannot be served.

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 ‘B(SMC

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Date of concluding the hearing : April 27, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : April 29, 2016

O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 21.12.2015.

2.

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, i.e. on 27.04.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D has come back undelivered from the Postal Authorities with a remark “addressee cannot be located”. The assessee thus has not bothered to inform the correct address in order to enable the Registry to serve the notice of hearing. It appears that the assessee thus is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 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 April 29, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →