M/s Thirdwave Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 7(2),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1168/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5092 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD GHAYAS UDDIN
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANET HRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 1168/KOL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. THIRDWAVE DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. PAN: AABCT 4065C VS I.T.O., WARD-7(2) KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MD. GHAYAS UD DIN, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29.02.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XXXII, KOLKATA IN A PPEAL NO.02/XXXII/11-12/R&T/7(2)/KOL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-05 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 29.02.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 29.02.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 2 5.01.2016. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY RP AD HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK TO OFFICE BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED ITS ADDRESS WI THOUT ANY INTIMATION TO THIS OFFICE OR HAS FURNISHED INCORREC T ADDRESS DELIBERATELY. IN CASE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS, THE ASS ESSEE MUST HAVE INTIMATED THE NEW ADDRESS TO THIS OFFICE BUT I T HAS NOT 2 ITA NOS.1168/KOL/2013 M/S. THIRDWAVE DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 DONE SO. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CON SIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 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 BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 ITA NOS.1168/KOL/2013 M/S. THIRDWAVE DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29/02/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 M/S. THIRDWAVE DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., 36, M.D. ROA D, 3 RD FLOOR, 2 ND BUILDING,, KOLKATA 700 006 2 I.T.O., WARD-7(2), KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA