ASOKE KUMAR DHAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 491/KOL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 November 2015AY 2003-043 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 that law assists the vigilant, decided that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was treated as dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed 26 days late, with the delay attributed to the accountant leaving the job. The appeal was listed for hearing, but neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment sought.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's failure to appear for the hearing and prosecute the appeal.

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 ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XX, Kolkata in Appeal No. 424/CIT(A)-XX/Cir-33/2008-09/Kol dated 14.09.2010 for the assessment year 2003-04.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 26 days. The assessee has submitted a condonation petiition dated 23.03.2011 for condoning the delay on the ground that his accountant, who was looking after the income tax matter had suddenly left the job. ./2011 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Page 2 of 3

3.

The assessee filed the present appeal on 24.03.2011. The date of hearing of this appeal was fixed from time to time. On 05.11.2015, the case was fixed for hearing before the Bench. Even the cause list was also posted on the Internet. However, on the date fixed for, i.e. 05.11.2015 neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed before us. Under these facts, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal.

4.

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 subveniunt”.

5.

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, we treat this appeal as dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →