Mr Barun Pramanik, Kolkata V. DCIT, CIR-55, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 386/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4091 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 386/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 386/KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 MR. BARUN PRAMANIK,................................ ............................APPELLANT 76A, BANAMALI NASKAR ROAD, BEHALA, KOLKATA-700 060 [PAN: AKDPP 4511 E] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. ...................RESPONDENT CIRCLE-55, KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-700 016 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI DULAL CHANDRA MONDAL, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 20, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 20, 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)-6, KOLKATA DAT ED 19.01.2015. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.07.2016. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGH T ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE AND THE HEARING ACCORDINGLY WAS ADJOU RNED TO 15.09.2016. ON 15.09.2016, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND ACCOR DINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.11.2016. ON 07.11.2016, THE ASS ESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.12.2016. ON 20.12.2016, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVER, HAS PUT IN A PPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMEN T HAS BEEN FILED. IT I.T.A. NO. 386/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 2 APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESESE THAT HE I S NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 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 DECEMBER 20, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI BARUN PRAMANIK, 76A, BANAMALI NASKAR ROAD, BEHALA, KOLKATA-700 060 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-55, KOLKATA, 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-700 016 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-6, KOLKATA ; (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.