Suresh V. Patted., Belgaum vs Assessee
- CitationITA NO. 30/PNJ/2014 : (Asst. Year - 2003-04)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal treats the appeal as not admitted and dismisses it for default. The reasoning rests on the principle that the law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights, and that a party who fails to prosecute an appeal, having been granted repeated adjournments and then not appearing on the listed date, may be dismissed for default under rule 19(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, where the Tribunal finds the assessee unwilling to prosecute the appeal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ITA NO. 30/PNJ/2014 : (Asst. Year - 2003-04)
Dr. Suresh V. Patted Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 613, Double Road, Shrinagar, Belgaum (Respondent) MM Extension, Belgaum 590010. PAN : ACOPP0471A (Appellant)
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Dr. S. Sundaresan, Ld. DR
Date of Hearing : 12/01/2015 Date of Order : 12/01/2015
ORDER
PER BENCH :
1. The above appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A), Belgaum dt. 21.11.2013 for A.Y 2003-04. The appeal was fixed for hearing previously on 7.4.2014, 24.6.2014, 7.8.2014 and 5.11.2014 and on all occasions, except one, had been adjourned on the request of the ld. AR.
Thereafter, the appeal was fixed for hearing today i.e. 12.1.2015 but the Assessee did not remain present.
2. The laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known dictum 'VIGILANTBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT'. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, as were considered in 38 ITD 320 (Del) in the case of CIT V. 2 ITA NO. 30/PNJ/2014 (A. Y : 2003-04)
Multiplan India Ltd. as also in 223 ITR 480 (M.P) in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar V. CWT, we treat the appeal as not admitted.
3. Therefore, following the decision of 38 ITD 320 read with Rule 24 & 25 with 19 of the ITA Rules, we dismiss the appeal for default since we find that the Assessee is not willing to prosecute the appeal. Our view gets support from the judgement of 255 ITR 467 (AP) and 265 ITR 252.
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed in limine.
5. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/01/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (D.T.Garasia) (P.K. Bansal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place : PANAJI / GOA Dated : 12/01/2015 *SSL* Copy to :
(1) Appellant (2) Respondent (3) CIT(A) concerned (4) CIT concerned (5) D.R (6) Guard file True copy, By order,
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free