M/S GREENEX CHEMICALS (P) LTD,SILIGURI vs. A.C.I.T CIR - 1,SILIGURI, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 596/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 February 2016AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismiss it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was scheduled for hearing multiple times, with the assessee requesting an adjournment once. On the final hearing date, neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was any adjournment application filed.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules

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 ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Date of concluding the hearing : February 11, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : February 11, 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 (Appeals), Siliguri dated 16.01.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

In this case, the hearing fixed on 09.12.2015 was adjourned by the Bench to 05.01.2016 at the request made by the assessee in writing. The Bench, however, did not function on 05.01.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 11.02.2016. At the time of hearing fixed on 11.02.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing was given to both the sides through notice ./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 board. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it 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.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on February 11, 2016.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →