M/S THIRDWAVE DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 7(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1168/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 February 2016AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and case law regarding non-prosecution, decided to dismiss the appeal. The assessee's failure to appear or provide necessary steps for hearing led to this decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on their behalf. The notice sent to the assessee was returned undelivered, suggesting the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

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: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Hearing: 29.02.2016Pronounced: 29.02.2016

ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata in Appeal no.02/XXXII/11-12/R&T/7(2)/Kol for the assessment year 2004-05 passed under section 143(3) of the I.T.Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 29.02.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 29.02.2016 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 25.01.2016. In this context, it is mentioned that the notice sent by RPAD has been returned back to Office by the Postal Authority. 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 it has not M/s. Thirdwave Distributors Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year: 2004-05 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. Thirdwave Distributors Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year: 2004-05 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 29th February, 2016.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →