Pramod Kumar Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata V. I.T.O Wd - 1(1),kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 2268/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4627 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANU BIS WAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANE THRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 2268/KOL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 PRAMOD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA PAN: AELPJ 5683B VS I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. RANU BIS WAL, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :28.06.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 05.04.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA IN APPE AL NO.146/CIT(A)-XX/WD.1(1)/2011-12/KOL FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006- 07 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 28.06.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 28.06.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 1 9.04.2016. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY RP AD HAS DULY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAR D IS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP A T THE TIME OF HEARING IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEI VED BY HIM. ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR EVEN SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 2 ITA NOS.2268/KOL/2013 PRAM OD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 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. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 3 ITA NOS.2268/KOL/2013 PRAM OD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( M. BALAGANESH) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28/06/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 SRI PRAMOD KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, 6C, MIDDLETON STREET , UNIT-62, KOLKATA 700 071. 2 I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA