Soumen Manna, Purba Medinipur V. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA, Purba Medinipur

ITA 989/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4663 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 989/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 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. 989 /KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 SHRI SOUMEN MANNA,................................. .....................APPELLANT BASUDEVPUR, GIRISH MORE, KHANJANCHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL-721 602 [PAN : AFUPM 3656 F] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,.............. .........RESPONDENT CIRCLE-HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJANCHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 APPEARANCES BY: N O N E, FOR THE ASSESSEE N O N E, FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 20, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : AUGUST 10, 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)-7, KOLKATA DAT ED 07.05.2015. 2. IN THIS CASE, NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 20.07.2016 NOR ANY APPLICA TION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST WIT H A/D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO HAS BEEN DULY SERVED, A PR OOF OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT O F THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APP EAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 989/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 AUGUST 10, 20 16. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER KOLKATA, THE 10 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI SOUMEN MANNA, BASUDEVPUR, GIRISH MORE, KHANJANCHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL-721 602 (2) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-HALDIA, BASUDEVPUR, P.O. KHANJANCHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 602 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7, KOLKA TA; (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.