Sajan Kumar Bansal, Howrah V. ITO, WD-47(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 430/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4917 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 430/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 430 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SAJAN KUMAR BANSAL,................................ ..........................APPELLANT 109C, GIRISH GHOSH ROAD, BELURMATH, HOWRAH-711 202 [PAN : AEGPB 4099 E] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ............................RESPONDENT WARD-47(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 10, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 10, 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 17.12.2015. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.04.2016. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE. THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOU RNED TO 10.05.2016 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO SEND NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO. ON 10.05.2016, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURN MENT HAS BEEN FILED. THIS NON-COMPLIANT AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 430/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 MAY 10, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI SAJAN KUMAR BANSAL, 109C, GIRISH GHOSH ROAD, BELURMATH, HOWRAH-711 202 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-14, KOLKA TA (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.