SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

T.R.SOOD, SUSHMA CHOWLA
Susham Singla – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Akhilesh Gupta

ORDER

1. The appeals filed by the assessee for different assessment years are against the separate orders all dated August 30, 2013, of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Ludhiana.

2. Earlier, these cases were fixed for hearing on November 13, 2013, but the Bench did not function on that date and cases were adjourned to March 20, 2014. Later on, these cases were again adjourned to June 2, 2014 and the date of hearing was informed to both parties. However, on June 2, 2014, none was present on behalf of the assessee, neither any adjournment was sought. 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 subveniunt". 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 v. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we treat these appeals as unadmitted.

3. Similar view has been taken by the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top