Leisure Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah V. ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1281/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1198 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D A J SAWKMIE
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1281/KOL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. D.A.J.SA WKMIE, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 06.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06 .09.2018 ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA FOR AY 2012-13 WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO EX-PARTE. 2. THE REGISTRY FIXED THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE AFORE-SAID APPEAL ON 06.09.2018 I.E. TODAY AND INTIMATED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 30.07.2018 BY RPAD. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON 06.09.2018 I.E. TODAY, NEITHER ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LEISURE SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD., 115, SHREE ARVIND ROAD, GOLABARI, HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL-711106. PAN-AABCL9422D VS ITO, WARD-13(2), 110, SHANTI PALLI, OPPOSITE RUBY HOSPITAL, KASBA, E.M.BY-PASS, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700107. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1281/KOL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] PAGE | 2 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL 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 PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HALKAR VS C.W.T. REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.09.2018. SD/- SD/- (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:-06.09.2018 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- LEISURE SUPPLIERS PVT.LTD., 115, SHREE ARVIND ROAD, GOLABARI, HOWRAH, WEST BENGAL-711106. 2. RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-13(2), 110, SHANTI PALLI, OPPOSITE RUBY HOSPITAL, KASBA, E.M.BY-PASS, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL-700107. 3. CIT-KOLKATA 4. CIT(APPEALS)-KOLKATA 5. DR: ITAT -KOLKATA BENCHES SR.P.S./H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA