The Jute Corporation of India Limited., Kolkata V. D.C.I.T Cir - 1,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 861/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4993 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH A, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANET HRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 861/KOL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. ANAND MOTOR AGENCIES LTD. PAN: AABCT 8820B VS D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SALLONG Y ADEN, ADDL.CIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :21.04.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 19.02.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XXIV, KOLKATA FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND 115WE( 3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 21.04.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE FOR THE HEARING ON 21.04.2016 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD . IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT IN SPITE OF NOTICE OF HEARING BEING R ECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DAT E OF HEARING. ON EARLIER OCCASION ALSO, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT OR TURN U P AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THIS TIME, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING BUT SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATE D 18.04.2016, WHEREIN NO REASON, WHATSOEVER IS MENTIO NED AND 2 ITA NO.861/KOL/2013 THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 HENCE REJECTED AS IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED 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 NO.861/KOL/2013 THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 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 21 ST APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/04/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 THE JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., HUDCO BUILDING, 7 TH FLOOR, 15N, NELLIE SENGUPTA SARANI, KOLKATA 700 087 2 DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA 3 CIT(A)-XXIV, KOLKATA 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA