Rajesh Ram Nagar, Howrah V. ITO, WD-46(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1031/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5157 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1031/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1031/KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 RAJESH RAM NAGAR,.................................. ................................APPELLANT 2/1A, GANPAT RAI KHEMKA LANE, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711 204 [PAN : ABOPN 2879 H] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ................................RESPONDENT WARD-46(3), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRABAL CHOWDHURY, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPA RTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JANUARY 07, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 07, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKATA DA TED 26.03.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.12.2015. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, MOVED AN APPLICATION IN WRITING SEEKING ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEA RING WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.01.2016. ON 07.01.2016, I.E. TODAY, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMEN T HAS BEEN FILED INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID DATE OF HEARING G IVEN ON EARLIER OCCASION WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. IT APPEARS FROM TH IS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 1031/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WEL L KNOWN DICTUM - VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIENT. 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 HONBLE MADHYA PRADE SH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS.- C.W.T . REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, I TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 07, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 7 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) RAJESH RAM NAGAR, 2/1A, GANPAT RAI KHEMKA LANE, LILUAH, HOWRAH-711 204 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(3), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKAT A (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.