M/s. Portcon Construction Company, Purba Medinipur V. ACIT, CC - II, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 105/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8487 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L K S DEHIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

I.T.(SS)A. NO. 105/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 05 .09.2002 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER), AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.(S.S)A. NO.: 105/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 05.09. 2002 M/S. PORTCON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY....APPELLAN T C/O. AJGAR ALI, DEROZEO BHAWAN, RANICHAK, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR-721 657 [PAN :ADSPM 5834 D] -VS.- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,......RESPO NDENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KOLKATA, PODDAR COURT, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700 001, APPEARANCES BY: N O N E FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI L.K.S. DEHIYA, CIT(D.R.) FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 26, 201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : SEPTEMBER 26, 2 012 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA DATED 02.06.201 1 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 05.09.2002. 2. THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.09.2012. H OWEVER, ON THE DATE FIXED FOR, I.E. 26.09.2012 NEITHER ANYBODY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E IS PRESENT NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. I.T.(SS)A. NO. 105/ KOL. / 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 05 .09.2002 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 WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT . 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE ITAT RULES AS WAS CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- MU LTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. C.W.T. REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 , WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- GEORGE MATHAN PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, THE 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.