MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, Howrah V. ITO WARD- 46(2)/KOL, Kolkata

ITA 925/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5541 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKAR HALDER
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 925/KOL/2017 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, AYS 2007-08 , C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA ( ) BEFORE . . , /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM] I.T.A. NO. 925/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH (PAN:ANOPS0474M) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-46(2), KOLKATA APPELLANT RESPONDENT FOR THE APPELLANT N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT, SR. D R DATE OF HEARING 04.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.06.2019 ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) 14, KOLKATA DATED 30.01.2016 FOR AY 2007-08. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. IT IS AL SO NOTED THAT THIS IS THE 3 RD TIME THE APPEAL IS FIXED FOR HEARING AND NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO, IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTE D IN PURSUING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARJEE & ANR. 118 ITR 461 (SC) OBSERVED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL MEANS EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT AND THE LAW DOES NOT HELP A SLEEPING LITIGANT. HENC E, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED. WE, THEREFORE, RELYING UP ON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT. ) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL), DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. 2 ITA NO. 925/KOL/2017 MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, AYS 2007-08 3. WE, FURTHER, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS ADVISED TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION TO RECALL THIS ORDER, THEN IT IS AT LIB ERTY TO DO SO FOR JUST CAUSE AND THE TRIBUNAL MAY DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE TO LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/06/2 019. SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGNESH) (A. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: JUNE, 2019 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT SHRI MUKESH KUMAR SINGH, 16, HAT LANE, NEAR MULLICK FATAK, HOWRAH- 711101 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-46(2), KOLKATA. 3 4 5 CIT(A)-14, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR