SMT RAKSHA SAHA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, RAIGANJ

PDF · subscribers
ITA 120/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 April 2016AY 2003-20042 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, observing the assessee's conduct and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 440 days. The appeal was adjourned twice, and on the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment application filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-prosecution by the assessee and significant delay.

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

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri dated 17.09.2015.

2.

In this case, an appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 440 days was initially fixed for hearing on 15.03.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 08.04.2016. On 08.04.2016, nobody, 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 she is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2003-2004 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →