ITO,Wd - 41(4),Nadia, Nadia V. Narayan Chandra Basak, Nadia

ITA 68/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9275 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 68/KOL./2015 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. 68/KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ....................................APPELLANT WARD-41(4), NADIA, NEDIAPARA, ANANTA HARI MITRA ROAD, P.O. KRISHNANAGAR, DIST. NADIA-741101 -VS.- NARAYAN CHANDRA BASAK,............................. .............................RESPONDENT HARISABHA PARA, NABADWIP, NADIA-741 302 [PAN: AEBPB 6969 G] APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE DEPARTMENT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MARCH 08, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MARCH 08, 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KOLKATA DATED 22.10.2014. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WA S EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 02.02.2017. AT THE T IME OF HEARING FIXED ON THE SAID DATE, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE GROUNDS F ILED BY THE REVENUE ARE LENGTHY AND ARGUMENTATIVE. THE LD. D.R. ACCORDINGLY WAS DIRECTED BY THE BENCH TO FILE THE REVISED GROUNDS IN CONCISE FORM A S PER RELEVANT RULES BY THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, WHICH WAS FIXED ON 08.03. 2017. THE DEPARTMENT, HOWEVER, HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTI ON. AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED ON 08.03.2017, I.E. TODAY, NONE, IN F ACT, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE EVEN TO EXPLAIN THE STEPS TAK EN TO COMPLY WITH THE I.T.A. NO. 68/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 2 DIRECTION OF THE BENCH. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CASUAL AND NEGLIGENT ATTITUDE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTEREST ED 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 REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 08, 201 7. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 8 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-41(4), NADIA, NEDIAPARA, ANANTA HARI MITRA ROAD, P.O. KRISHNANAGAR, DIST. NADIA-741101 (2) SHRI NARAYAN CHANDRA BASAK, HARISABHA PARA, NABADWIP, NADIA-741 302 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXXVI, KO LKATA; (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.