Shri Haradhan Samanta, Hooghly V. The ITO, Wd-1(4), Hooghly, Hooghly

ITA 1218/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5103 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS
• Section: 263

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. 1218/KOL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI HARADHAN SAMANTA PAN: ATFPS 1052E VS C.I.T., KOL-XX, KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJAT SU BHRA BISWAS, CIT,DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23.02.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 20.03.2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XX, KOLKATA F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T.AC T. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 23.02.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 23.02.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERE D WITH A/D. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT IN SPITE OF NOTICE OF HEAR ING BEING RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BE NCH ON THE DATE OF HEARING. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO, THE APP EAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE ASSESSEE EITHER SOUGHT FOR ADJO URNMENT OR DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THIS TIME A LSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR EVEN HE 2 ITA NOS.1218/KOL/2014 SHR I HARADHAN SAMANTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THA T THE ASSESSEE IS 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.1218/KOL/2014 SHR I HARADHAN SAMANTA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 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 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23/02/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 SHRI HARADHAN SAMANTA, VILL, AND P.O. PURSURAH, P.S . ARAMBAGH, DIST- HOOGHLY 712 401. 2 I.T.O., WARD-1(4), HOOGHLY- 712 101 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA