Anjali Nayak, Purba Medinipur V. ITO, Ward 27(2), Haldia, Purba Medinipur

ITA 451/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7929 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 451/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ANJALI NAYAK 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) I.T.A. NO. 451/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ANJALI NAYAK,...................................... ......................................APPELLANT TALGACHARI, RAMNAGAR, CONTAI, DIST. PURBA MIDNAPUR-721 441 [PAN: AEFPN 4461 D] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ...................................RESPONDENT WARD-27(2), HALDIA, BASUDEBPUR, P.O. KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI SHANKAR HALDER, JCIT, SR. D.R. , FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 22, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 22, 2019 O R D E R PER SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ):- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKATA DAT ED 09.11.2016. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS EARLIER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 PASSED EX-PARTE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ALLOWING THE SAME VIDE ITS ORDER DA TED MARCH 16, 2018 PASSED IN M.A. NO. 230/KOL/2017, THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 PASSED EX-PARTE WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING AFRESH BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH ON 21.03.2018. ON 2 1.03.2018, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING ACCO RDINGLY WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.04.2018. ON 24.04.2018, THE ASSESSE E SOUGHT ITA NO. 451/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ANJALI NAYAK 2 ADJOURNMENT AND HEARING ACCORDINGLY WAS ADJOURNED T O 18.06.2018. ON 18.06.2018, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.07.2018. THE ASSESSE E AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 19.07.2018 AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARI NG WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.09.2018. ON 18.09.2018, NONE AGAIN APPEARED ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.10.2018 WITH A DIRE CTION TO THE REGISTRY TO SEND THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSES SEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D. ON 16.10.2018, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.11.2018 . ON 27.11.2018, NONE AGAIN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND H EARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.01.2019 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO S END THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WIT H A/D. ON 23.01.2019, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDING LY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.01.2019. NONE, HOWEVER, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.01.2019 AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNE D TO 18.03.2019 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO ISSUE THE NOTIC E OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D. ON 18.03. 2019 AS WELL AS ON 08.04.2019, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT A ND ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FINALL Y ON 22.04.2019. ON 22.04.2019, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HA S BEEN FILED. KEEPING IN VIEW THIS NON-COMPLIANT AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTI TUDE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTE RESTED 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 ITA NO. 451/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-2013 ANJALI NAYAK 3 480, 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 22, 201 9. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) KOLKATA, THE 22 ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 COPIES TO : (1) SMT. ANJALI NAYAK, TALGACHARI, RAMNAGAR, CONTAI, DIST. PURBA MIDNAPUR-721 441 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-27(2), HALDIA, BASUDEBPUR, P.O. KHANJAN CHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKAT A, (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.