M/s Balgopal Distributors Pvt Ltd, Kolkata V. C.I.T Kol - I,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1333/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5040 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2013
• 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. 1333/KOL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. BALAGOPAL DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. PAN: AADCB 4857G VS C.I.T.-I, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJAT SU BHRA BISWAS, CIT,DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :03.03.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED NIL PASSED BY THE CIT, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 03.03.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 03.03.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 0 1.02.2016. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY RP AD HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK TO OFFICE BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY MARKING AS NOT KNOWN. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ANGED ITS ADDRESS WITHOUT ANY INTIMATION TO THIS OFFICE OR HA S FURNISHED INCORRECT ADDRESS DELIBERATELY. IN CASE OF CHANGE O F ADDRESS, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INTIMATED THE NEW ADDRESS TO THI S OFFICE BUT 2 ITA NOS.1333/KOL/2013 M/S. BALGOPAL DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 IT HAS NOT DONE SO. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT 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.1333/KOL/2013 M/S. BALGOPAL DISTRIBUTORS PVT.LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 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 3 RD MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/03/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 M/S. BALAGOPAL DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., 16, G.C. AVE NUE, KOLKATA 700 072. 2 C.I.T., KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA