VIKRAMADITY SINGH,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),SILIGURI, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1170/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 February 2016AY 2003-043 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that no legal heirs were brought on record and the defects in the appeals were not rectified. Therefore, the Tribunal treated the appeals as unadmitted and dismissed them for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) were listed for hearing. The notice sent to the assessee was returned unserved with a remark that the addressee had expired.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the death of the assessee and failure to bring legal heirs on record.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri, both dated 04.03.2013 whereby he confirmed the penalties of Rs.68,292/- and Rs.61,041/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively.

2.

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed today, i.e. on 29.02.2016. The notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D has been returned by the Postal Authorities unserved with a remark “addressee expired, hence returned to sender”. It is seen that the intimation of the death of the & 1171/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 2 of 3 assessee is not placed on record. No efforts have also been taken to bring the legal heirs on record so as to enable the Registry to serve the notice of hearing after necessary verification. The Registry has also pointed out certain defects in these appeals filed by the assessee, but the same have not been rectified even after the communication of the same to the assessee. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the assessee or his successors are not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals 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 these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →