Smt Raksha Saha, Uttar Dinajpur V. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, Raiganj

ITA 120/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5070 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 120/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 120 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004 SMT. RAKSHA SAHA................................... ...........................APPELLANT ASHOK PALLY, RAIGANJ, DIST. UTTAR DINAJPUR [PAN : AXQPS 2366 E] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........................RESPONDENT WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR-733 134 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE MD. GHAYAS UDDIN, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 08, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 15, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JALPAIGUR I DATED 17.09.2015. 2. IN THIS CASE, AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WI TH A DELAY OF 440 DAYS WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.04.2016. ON 08.04.2016, NOBODY, HOW EVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKI NG ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT SHE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FIL ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 120/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-2004 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 APRIL 15, 201 6. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SMT. RAKSHA SAHA, C/O. SANTOSH SAHA, ASHOK PALLY, RAIGANJ, DIST. UTTAR DINAJPUR (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR-733 134 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)- JALPAIGURI (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.