M/s Capso Industries, Hooghly V. ITO, WD-1(2), HOOGHLY, Hooghly

ITA 460/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4808 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 460/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 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. 460 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 M/S. CAPSO INDUSTRIES,............................. .................................APPELLANT DELHI ROAD, NEAR JAL TANK, BANGIHATI, SERAMPORE, HOOGHLY-712 203 [PAN : AACFC 1668 E] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .................................RESPONDENT WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, CHINSURAH-712 101 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI PRABAL CHOUDHURY, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 25, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 25, 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 18.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INI TIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.04.2016. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE. THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOU RNED BY THE BENCH TO 04.05.2016 WITH A DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO ISSU E FRESH NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN I N THE APPEAL MEMO BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D. ON 04.05.2016, THE ASSESS EE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURN ED TO 25.05.2016 AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND TAKEN NOTE OF BY TH E LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 25.05.2016, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPL ICATION SEEKING I.T.A. NO. 460/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 2 ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT T HE SPECIFIC DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING DEFECT NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESS EE. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS 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 MAY 25, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) M/S. CAPSO INDUSTRIES, DELHI ROAD, NEAR JAL TANK, BANGIHATI, SERAMPORE, HOOGHLY-712 203 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HOOGHLY, CHINSURAH-712 101 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-6, KOLKAT A; (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.