Jayanta Ghosh, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-33(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 967/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9242 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 967/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C(SMC) BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 967/KOL/ 2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 JAYANTA GHOSH,..................................... ........................................APPELLANT 126/1A, MAULANA KALAM AZAD SARANI, KOLKATA-700 054 [PAN: ADFPG 9613 H ] -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,................................ .....................................RESPONDENT WARD-33(2), KOLKATA, 10, MIDDLETON ROAD, KOLKATA-700 071 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI ALOK NAG, JCIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : FEBRUARY 28, 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : FEBRUARY 28, 2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9, KOLKATA DAT ED 29.02.2016. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE W AS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 28.09.2016. THE ASSE SSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE C ASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.11.2016 WHEN THE LD. D.R. SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 27.12.2016, WHEN THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARIN G WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.02.2017. ON 28.02.2017, I.E. TODAY, NONE, HOWEVE R, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 967/KOL./2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-2006 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 FEBRUARY 28, 2017. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI JAYANTA GHOSH, 126/1A, MAULANA KALAM AZAD SARANI, KOLKATA-700 054 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-33(2), KOLKATA, 10, MIDDLETON ROAD, KOLKATA-700 071 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-9, KOLKATA ; (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.