Anit Prakash Khairari, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-35(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 822/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4502 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 822/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 822 /KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 SHRI ANIT PRAKASH KHAIRARI,........................ .................................APPELLANT 1, PRINCEP STREET, KOLKATA-700 072 [PAN : AFZPK 2944 K] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .....................................RESPONDENT WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 21, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 21, 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)-12, KOLKATA DA TED 24.03.2015. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 21.07.2016. NOBODY, HOWEVER, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNME NT HAS BEEN FILED. EVEN THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WITH A/D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH A REMARK NOT KNOWN. THE ASSESSEE THUS HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO FURNISH HIS COMPLETE ADDRESS IN ORDER T O ENABLE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE E THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FIL ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 822/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 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 SEPTEMBER 21, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 21 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI ANIT PRAKASH KHAIRARI, 1, PRINCEP STREET, KOLKATA-700 072 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-700 001 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, KOLK ATA; (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.