S.B.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,BIRBHUM vs. A.C.I.T CIR - SURI,BIRBHUM, BIRBHUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 486/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 December 2015AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following established legal principles and precedents, held that the law aids the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. The appeal was considered unadmitted due to the assessee's non-prosecution.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was listed for hearing, but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite being informed of the hearing date. The assessee did not seek an adjournment or provide any explanation for their absence.

What were the issues?

Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the assessee fails to appear for the hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’ble JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’ble AM]

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2012 of ld. CIT(A), Durgapur for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

During the course of hearing of the above appeal on 01.12.2015, nobody was present on behalf of the assessee, although the date of next hearing was informed to the assessee on 17.09.2015. It is, therefore, presumed that in spite of the assessee being informed the hearing date on 01.12.2015, the assessee did not appear before the Bench on 1

S. B. Construction Co.: Assessment Year: 2007-08 the date of hearing nor made any application seeking adjournment. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.

3.

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.

4.

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.

6.

Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held

S. B. Construction Co.: Assessment Year: 2007-08 that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

7.

So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 1st December, 2015.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →