SHRI SARAD GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 418/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 January 2016AY 2009-20103 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, observing the assessee's lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal and citing legal principles of vigilance, decided to treat the appeal as unadmitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee repeatedly sought adjournments for the hearing of their appeal before the ITAT. Despite multiple adjournments, the assessee failed to appear for the final hearing and did not file any application for further adjournment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's repeated adjournments and failure to appear.

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)-XIX, Kolkata dated 17.12.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 24.07.2015. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 31.08.2015. On 31.08.2015, the Bench did not function and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 10.09.2015. On 10.09.2015, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 13.10.2015. The Bench did not function on 13.10.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3 adjourned to 01.12.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed on 01.12.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 05.01.2016. The assessee again sought adjournment on 05.01.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 27.01.2016. On 27.01.2016, i.e. today, nobody has again appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the said date was announced in the open Court at the time of earlier hearing fixed on 05.01.2016. Keeping in view all these facts clearly evident from the record, 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, 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 27, 2016.

(P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 27th day of January, 2016 ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 3 of 3

Copies to : (1) Shri Sarad Gupta, Lords-311, 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Kolkata-700 071

(2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(1), Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700 071

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →