SHRI NARESH KUMAR GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1908/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 January 2016AY 2007-20083 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual and negligent attitude, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. Following established legal principles, the appeal was treated as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, but failed to appear for multiple hearings. Notices sent to the assessee's address were returned undelivered.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee due to repeated absence from 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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata dated 11.07.2014 for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 24.08.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date as well as on the subsequent dates, i.e. 07.09.2015 and 09.12.2015 when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing. Even today, i.e. on 05.01.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee and even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo, has come back undelivered with the remark by the Postal Authorities “left”. ./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 3 This casual and negligent attitude of the assessee clearly shows that he 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, I 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 05, 2016.

(P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 5th day of January, 2016 Copies to : (1) Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta, 4A, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Ground Floor, Shop No. 3, Kolkata-700 001

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(2), Kolkata, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-700 107

(3) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata (4) Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative ./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →