SUBHAM ENTERPRISE, Malda V. D.C.I.T., Malda Circle, Malda, Malda

ITA 1568/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4726 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1568/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1568 /KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 SUBHAM ENTERPRISE,................................. ...............................APPELLANT C/O. PRADIP KUMAR BASAK, M.K. ROAD, FULBARI, P.O. & DISTRICT-MALDA-732 101 [PAN : ABCFS 8135 M] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ....................RESPONDENT MALDA CIRCLE, MALDA APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI ARUN KANTI SINHA, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 18, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 18, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JALPAIGUR I DATED 26.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16.06.2016. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THE SAID DATE. T HE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.08.2016 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO SEND THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGIS TERED POST WITH A/D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO. ON 18.08.2016 , 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 IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 1568/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-2010 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 AUGUST 18, 20 16. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SUBHAM ENTERPRISE, C/O. PRADIP KUMAR BASAK, M.K. ROAD, FULBARI, P.O. & DISTRICT-MALDA-732 101 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MALDA CIRCLE, MALDA (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JALPAIGU RI; (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.