Subrato Bhattacharjee, Kolkata V. C.I.T (A) - XIV,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 785/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5096 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M S T AUHEED
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANET HRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 785/KOL/2014 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI SUBRATO BHATTACHARJEE PAN: ADRPB 4965D VS I.T.O., WARD-28(3) KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.M.S. T AUHEED, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23.02.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 367/CIT(A)-XIV/KOL./08-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 23.02.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 23.02.2016 WAS INFORMED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT IN SPITE OF NOTICE OF HEARING BEING I NFORMED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DAT E OF HEARING. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE ASSESSEE EITHER SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT OR DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THIS TIME ALSO, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR EVEN HE SOUGHT FOR ADJOU RNMENT. IT, 2 ITA NOS.785/KOL/2013 SUB RATO BHATTACHARJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CON SIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 3 ITA NOS.785/KOL/2013 SUB RATO BHATTACHARJEE ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23/02/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 SHRI SHRI VINOD KUMAR MATHUR, ADVOCATE, 1B, NANDO M ALLICK LANE, KOLKATA 700 006 2 CIT(A)-XIV, KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA