SURESH CHAND JAISWAL,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-I, HALDIA, HALDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 232/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 January 2016AY 2009-20103 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, citing the principle of 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient', treated the appeal as unadmitted and dismissed it for non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT, which was adjourned multiple times due to the assessee's non-appearance. Despite proper notice, the assessee failed to appear for the final hearing.

What were the issues?

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

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)-XXXIII, Kolkata dated 13.02.2014 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 28.08.2015. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 23.09.2015. The Bench did not function on 23.09.2015 as well as on the couple of occasions thereafter when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 08.11.2015 and 23.11.2015. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.12.2015 when none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing, therefore, was again adjourned to 05.01.2016. On 05.01.2016, i.e. today, again none has appeared on behalf of the assessee ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3 inspite of the fact that the notice of the said hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. 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) Suresh Chand Jaiswal, Durgachak Colony, Block-E/1, Ward-9, Plot-E/79, Haldia, Purba Medinipur-721 602

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia, Khajanchak, Haldia

(3) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Kolkata ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →