M/S A.P.ENGINEERING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 51(4),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2230/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 April 2016AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Notices sent to the assessee were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing and does not inform of address changes.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

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’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Date of concluding the hearing : April 07, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : April 15, 2016

O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata dated 28.05.2013, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.37,826/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

In this case, nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing fixed on 07.04.2016. Even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D has been returned back by the Postal Authorities undelivered with a remark “left”. The assessee thus 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 ./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2 these facts of the case, it appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal 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 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 15, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →