Prankrishna Bag, Purba Medinipur V. ITO, WD-27(3), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 1022/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1513 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KALYAN NATH ACIT
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA NO.1022/KOL/2015 (A.Y: 2008-2009) PRANKRISHNA BAG NANDAKUMAR, PURBA MEDINIPUR, PIN 721643. VS. I.T.O WARD-27(3), HALDIA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AJAPB 7873 K ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY :NONE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI KALYAN NATH, ACIT / DATE OF HEARING : 07/09/2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07/09/2017 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA DATED 13.03.2015. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 07.09.2017 BUT NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED. HOWEVER, NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT ITAT IN PAST ON 31.07.17 BUT ALSO NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARINGS. IT MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : 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 PRANKRISHNA BAG ITA NO.1022/KOL/2015 (A.Y: 2008-2009) 2 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS, THAT IS, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 07/09/2017. SD/ - (A. T. VARKEY) SD/ - (DR. A. L. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; DATED: 07/09/2017 RS, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT-PRANKRISHNA BAG 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- I.T.O WARD-27(3), HALDIA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, I.T.A.T, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .