GANGA RICE MILL (PVT)LTD,MURSHIDABAD vs. A.C.I.T CIR - MURSHIDABAD., MURSHIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 63/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 January 2016AY 2001-023 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude, considered the appeal unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was repeatedly adjourned due to non-appearance and requests for adjournment. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to appear for the hearing on the scheduled date.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee repeatedly 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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

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

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 16.10.2012 for the assessment year 2001-02.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Division Bench on 05.11.2014. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 10.02.2015. Non appeared on behalf of the assesee on 10.02.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 19.05.2015. On 19.05.2015, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the ./2013 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 2 of 3 hearing was adjourned to 12.08.2015. The assessee again sought adjournment on 12.08.2015 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 09.11.2015. The Bench did not function on 09.11.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 08.01.2016, the notice of which was given to the parties through Notice Board. On 08.01.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, it appears that the assessee 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 January 08, 2016. Sd/- Sd/-

1.

(S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Accountant Member Kolkata, the 8th day of January, 2016

Copies to : (1) Ganga Rice Mill (Pvt.) Limited, 166/20, A.C. Road, P.O. Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad ./2013 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 3 of 3

(2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Murshidabad, Aayakar Bhawan, 57, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742 101

(3) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →