Mamata Shankar Ballet Troupe, Kolkata V. DDIT (Exemption)-II, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1300/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5014 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P NAG
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANET HRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 1300/KOL/2010 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 MAMATA SHANKAR BALLET TROUPE PAN: AAATM 8509N VS DDIT(EXEMPTION)-II, KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.P.NAG, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :17.03.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 26.02.2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 581/CIT(A)-XIV/08-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 17.03.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E DATE OF HEARING ON 17.03.2016 WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 23.02.2016. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE ASSESSEE EITHER SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT OR DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS ALSO MENTIO NED THAT THIS APPEAL WAS ALSO DISMISSED EARLIER BY THIS TRIBUNAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE FILED M.A. FOR REST ORATION OF THIS APPEAL AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL. 2 ITA NOS.1300/KOL/2010 MAMA TA SHANKAR BALLET TROUPE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THIS TIME ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR EVEN HE SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT, TH EREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROS ECUTE 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 3 ITA NOS.1300/KOL/2010 MAMA TA SHANKAR BALLET TROUPE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 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 17 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27/05/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 MAMATA SHANKAR BALLET TROUPE, 21A, HINDUSTHAN ROAD, KOLKATA 700 029 2 DDIT(EXEMPTION)-II, KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA