PALLABI VINIMAY PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH ARNOLD HOLDINGS LTD),KOLKATA vs. C.I.T - II,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1331/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 March 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 lack of diligence in prosecuting the appeal and their failure to provide a correct address. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. Notices sent to the assessee's registered address were returned undelivered, indicating the assessee had moved and was not available.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and provide a correct address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

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 S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Date of concluding the hearing : March 03, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : March 03, 2016

O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II, Kolkata dated 28.03.2013 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed today, i.e. on 03.03.2016 nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D to the address given in the appeal memo has been returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with the remark “addressee moved/not available”. It appears that the assessee has not bothered to furnish the correct address in order to enable the Registry to serve the notice of hearing and this conduct of the assessee shows that it ./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 2 of 2 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.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →