Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Howrah V. ITO, Ward - 48(4), Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 272/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4975 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 272/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 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. 272 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SRI RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY,........................... .....................APPELLANT 31, BHAIRAB DUTTA LANE, HOWRAH-711 106 [PAN : AMCPP 1928 L] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...........................RESPONDENT WARD-48(4), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SMT. SUCHETA CHATTAPADHYAY, JCIT, FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 27, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 29, 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)-14, KOLKATA DA TED 21.12.2015. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS CASE TODAY, I.E. ON 27.04.2016, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. EVEN THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D HAS COME B ACK UNDELIVERED FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH A REMARK ADDRESSEE CAN NOT BE LOCATED. THE ASSESSEE THUS HAS NOT BOTHERED TO INFORM THE CORREC T ADDRESS IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE REGISTRY TO SERVE THE NOTICE OF HEARING. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 272/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 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 APRIL 29, 201 6. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SRI RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY, 31, BHAIRAB DUTTA LANE, HOWRAH-711 106 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(4), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE WEST, KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-14, KOLKATA (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.