Smt. Jyoti Raghuram Desai, Kalaburagi V. Asst.C.I.T., Kalaburagi

ITA 1206/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9253 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G. KAMALADAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ B ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.1206/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Smt. Jyothi Raghuram Desai, C/o Dr. G.V. Sambrani, Sambrani Building, Court Road, Kalaburagi-585 101 .... Appellant. PAN AILPD 1569J Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kalaburagi. ..... Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri G. Kamaladar, Standing Counsel. Date of Hearing : 27.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.30.03.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gulbarga for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. The Notice issued to the assessee through RPAD has 2 ITA No.1206/Bang/2016 been received back with postal remark that the addressee has left the address. Thus it is clear that Notice at the address given by the assessee in the Memo of Appeal cannot be served. The assessee has not taken any step to file the fresh address. Hence we are satisfied that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal. 3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeals on hand. 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 SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2008- 09 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th April, 2017. Sd/- (S. JAYARAMAN) Accountant Member Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dt. 28.04.2017. *Reddy gp 3 ITA No.1206/Bang/2016 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File. Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore.