DILIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 239/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 January 20162 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 towards prosecuting the appeal. Citing legal principles and relevant case law, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates, but the assessee or their representative failed to appear on any of these occasions. No adjournment applications were filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated absence and lack of interest in pursuing the matter.

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 27.08.2013 for the assessment year 2002-03.

2.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 22.07.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date as well as on the subsequent date, when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 09.09.2015. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 01.12.2015, when again none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 21.12.2015. On 21.12.2015, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 06.01.2016. On 06.01.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee ./2014 Assessment year: 2002-2003 Page 2 of 2 nor any application for adjournment has been filed. 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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →