M/S. ARES & SONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 49, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution. This decision was based on established legal precedents where absence of a party leads to dismissal.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear for the hearing of their appeals before the ITAT on multiple occasions, including the current date. Despite receiving notices, the assessee did not appear or seek adjournment.
What were the issues?
Whether appeals can be dismissed for non-prosecution by the assessee. The importance of the assessee effectively pursuing their appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT2,040 citing223 ITR 480 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another1,656 citing118 ITR 461 · 1997 · SC
- New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT351 citing296 ITR 495 · 2008 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)
M/s. Ares & Sons Vs ACIT, Circle-49, PAN: AAIFA 1221D Kolkata (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : None Date of Hearing : 03.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement :03.12.2015 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. These two appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders both dated 20.10.2010 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XXXII, Kolkata in Appeal Nos.202 & 203/CIT(A)-XXXII/09-10/Cir-49/Kol for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08 respectively passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the I.T.Act.
At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 03.12.2015, despite the fact that notice of the said hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD. It is, therefore, presumed that in spite of notice of hearing being received by the assessee, the assessee did not appear before the Bench on the date of hearing. On earlier several occasions, the appeal was fixed for hearing but the assessee either did not turn up at the time of hearing or sought for adjournment. This time also, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing nor even he sought for 2 & 1475/Kol/2011 M/s. Ares & Sons Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 adjournment. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under:
“if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
3 & 1475/Kol/2011 M/s. Ares & Sons Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2007-08 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals of the assessee for non-prosecution.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd December, 2015.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, DwarkaRajkot4 Jul 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's claim of unawareness. However, the Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of due care and attention in pursuing the...
- M/S. Ruby Gems Private Limited, Surat vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), SuratSurat13 Mar 2025Dismissed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal were general and lacked corroborative evidence, thus not constituting a "sufficient cause" for condonation. Furthermore, the ...
- The Temples Charitable Institutions and… vs ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(4), MumbaiMumbai7 Apr 2026Remanded
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the non-representation was a consequence of mismanagement, not a dilatory tactic, and that the principles of natural justice require a hearing on merits. Therefore, the impugned orders were set asi...
- Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan…Guwahati26 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present their case on merits. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s orders were set aside, and the appeals we...
- Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs Central Circle-2, GuwahatiGuwahati26 Feb 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to comply with notices from the AO and CIT(A), indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. However, considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside ...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
