Vijay Kumar Prahladka, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-42(1), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9249 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1255/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 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. 1255/KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 VIJAY KUMAR PRAHLADKA,............................. ................................APPELLANT (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR 1, B.K. PAUL AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 005 [PAN: AFOPP 2439 P ] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .....................................RESPONDENT WARD-42(1), KOLKATA, APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI ALOK NAG, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 28, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 28, 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 27.02.2014. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 25.08.2016. NONE, HO WEVER, APPEARED EITHER ON 25.08.2016 OR EVEN ON 24.10.2016 AND 12.0 1.2017, WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.02.2017 . ON 28.02.2017, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 1255/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 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 FEBRUARY 28, 2017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) VIJAY KUMAR PRAHLADKA, (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR 1, B.K. PAUL AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 005 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-42(1), KOLKATA (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOL KATA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.