SHRI HARADHAN SAMANTA,HOOGHLY vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1218/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 February 2016AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and case law, decided that the appeal should be treated as unadmitted due to the assessee's consistent non-prosecution. The law aids vigilant parties, not those who neglect their rights.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the CIT(Appeals) under section 263 of the IT Act. The assessee failed to appear for the hearing on multiple occasions, including the current one, despite receiving notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings. The principle of 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt' in the context of tax appeals.

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: 23.02.2016Pronounced: 23.02.2016

Shri Haradhan Samanta Vs C.I.T., Kol-XX, PAN: ATFPS 1052E Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT,DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2016 Date of Pronouncement :23.02.2016 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2014 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XX, Kolkata for the assessment year 2009-10 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 23.02.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 23.02.2016 was sent to the assessee by registered with A/D. It is, therefore, presumed that in spite of notice of hearing being received, the assessee did not appear before the Bench on the date of hearing. On earlier occasions also, the appeal was fixed for hearing but the assessee either sought for adjournment or did not turn up at the time of hearing. This time also, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing nor even he 2 Shri Haradhan Samanta Assessment Year: 2009-10 sought for adjournment. 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.

3 Shri Haradhan Samanta Assessment Year: 2009-10 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 23rd February, 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 →