M/S BALGOPAL DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. C.I.T KOL - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1333/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 March 2016AY 2008-093 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 held that the assessee appeared to be not interested in prosecuting the matter and that the law aids the vigilant. Following established precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an order passed by the CIT under section 263 was listed for hearing. Despite proper notice sent by registered post, the notice was returned by postal authorities marked as 'Not known'. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearing and the notice is returned undelivered.

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(4)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 BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT,DR
Hearing: 03.03.2016Pronounced: 03.03.2016

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated Nil passed by the CIT, Kolkata-I, Kolkata for the assessment year 2008- 09 passed under section 263 of the I.T.Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 03.03.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 03.03.2016 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 01.02.2016. In this context, it is mentioned that the notice sent by RPAD has been returned back to Office by the Postal Authority marking as “Not known”. It is, therefore, presumed that either the assessee has changed its address without any intimation to this Office or has furnished incorrect address deliberately. In case of change of address, the assessee must have intimated the new address to this Office but M/s. Balgopal Distributors Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 it has not done so. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

3.

The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted.

4.

Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under:

“if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

M/s. Balgopal Distributors Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year: 2008-09 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd March, 2016.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →