Sri Swapan Kumar Roy, Hooghly V. ITO, WD-1(4), HOOGHLY, Hooghly

ITA 86/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4919 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 86 & 87/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 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. NOS. 86 & 87 /KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 SRI SWAPAN KUMAR ROY,.............................. ..........................APPELLANT KANPUR, P.O. BARAKANPUR, ARAMBAGH, HOOGHLY-712 601 [PAN : ACWPR 5878 D] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ ............................RESPONDENT WARD-1(4), HOOGHLY APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SRIDHAR BHATTACHARYYA, JCIT, SR. D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : MAY 03, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 03, 2016 O R D E R THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 6, KOLKATA, BOTH DATED 26.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 15.03.2016. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGH T ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAID DATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.04.2016. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 11.04.2016 AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.04.2016. ON 18.04.2016, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNED AND FIXED ON 03.05.2016. ON 03.05.2016, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVE R, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING WAS DULY GIVEN THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE I.T.A. NOS. 86 & 87/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE AP PEALS 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 THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED AND DISMIS S THE SAME FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MAY 03, 2016. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 3 RD DAY OF MAY, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SRI SWAPAN KUMAR ROY, KANPUR, P.O. BARAKANPUR, ARAMBAGH, HOOGHLY-712 601 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HOOGHLY (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.