M/s. RAHUL METALS, Kolkata V. ITO, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, Asansol

ITA 1892/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4672 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 1892/KOL./2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA B(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1892 /KOL/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S. RAHUL METALS,................................. ............................APPELLANT 15, HARA PRASAD SHASTRI SARANI, NEW ALIPORE, KOLKATA-700 053 [PAN : AAIFR 9723 P] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........................RESPONDENT WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, 54, G.T. ROAD, APCAR GARDEN (WEST), ASANSOL-713 304 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 21, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 10, 2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOL DATED 12.08.2014. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 06.06.2016. ADJOURNMENT, HOWEVER, WAS SO UGHT ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE SAID DATE AND ACCORDINGLY, TH E HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.07.2016. ON 21.07.2016, NONE, HOWEV ER, 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 PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 1892/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 AUGUST 10, 20 16. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. RAHUL METALS, 15, HARA PRASAD SHASTRI SARANI, NEW ALIPORE, KOLKATA-700 053 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), ASANSOL, 54, G.T. ROAD, APCAR GARDEN (WEST), ASANSOL-713 304 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ASANSOL ; (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.