Sudip Rungta, Kolkata V. DCIT, Circle - 49, Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 2370/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0926 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2370/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH D, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2370/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-19, KOLKATA FOR AY 2011-12. NO ONE WAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL ON 23.11.2017. THE REGISTRY, ITAT ISSUED NOTICE DATED 31.07.2018 INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 03.09.2018 BY RPAD. THE SAID NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED. THE TRIBUNAL ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE BY RPAD DATED 03.09.2018 INTIMATING THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 10.10.2018 BUT NO ONE WAS APPEARED AGAIN AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.11.2018 I.E. TODAY. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON 05.11.2018 I.E. TODAY, NEITHER ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THEREFORE, IT 1 SUDIP RUNGTA, PS MAGNUM, BLOCK-5, FLAT 5C, VIP ROAD, KAIKHALI, KOLKATA-700052. PAN-ADDPR2818R VS DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. C.J.SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 05.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2018 ITA NO.2370/KOL/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL 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 PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HALKAR VS C.W.T. REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.11.2018. SD/- SD/- (M.BALAGANESH) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE:- 22.11.2018 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT- SUDIP RUNGTA, PS MAGNUM, BLOCK-5, FLAT 5C, VIP ROAD, KAIKHALI, KOLKATA-700052. 2. RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-49, KOLKATA. 3. CIT-KOLKATA 4. CIT(APPEALS)-KOLKATA 5. DR: ITAT -KOLKATA BENCHES SR.P.S./H.O.O ITAT, KOLKATA 2