Dipankar Roy Chowdhury , Howrah V. ITO, Ward - 48(1) , Kolkata

ITA 2675/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2814 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATYAJIT MONDAL
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA NO.2675/KOL/2018 (A.Y: 2010-11) DIPANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY 6/13, KASHI MONDAL LANE, BELUR MATH, HOWRAH VS. ITO, WARD-48(1), KOLKATA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AOIPR 8009 L ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATYAJIT MONDAL, ADDL. CIT SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/06/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10/06/2019 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKATA (IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) ] WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 144 / 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT] DATED 28/12/2017. 2. THIS APPEAL FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL D ATES. ON 27.05.2019 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.06.2019 I.E. TODAY. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE. IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO T INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS. HENCE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (1). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE AND AN OTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. (2). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : DIPANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY ITA NO.2675/KOL/2018 A.Y: 2010-11 2 IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REF ERENCE. (3). IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE W AS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS; I.E. VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE T O MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10/06/2019 SD/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) SD/- (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 10/06/2019 ( SB, SR.PS ) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. DIPANKAR ROY CHOWDHURY 2. ITO, WARD-48(1), KOLKATA 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKA TA BENCHES