RAJNI PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 12(3) KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata dated 22.09.2016 and in the grounds raised therein, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(b) of the Act.

The assessee in the present case is a Company, which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 04.09.2007 declaring total income at ‘NIL’. The said return was selected for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him under section 143(2) as well as under section 142(1), he proceeded to complete the assessment to the Assessment Year: 2007-2008 best of his judgment under section 144 vide an order dated 24.12.2009 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,26,345/-.

Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and since there was no compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued by him fixing the said appeal for hearing from time to time, the ld. CIT(Appeals) proceeded to uphold the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.

At the time of hearing of this appeal of the assessee fixed today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee and only an application has been filed seeking adjournment, which is placed on record. The non- compliant attitude of the assessee thus has continued even before the Tribunal. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R., the assessee in the grounds raised in its appeal before the Tribunal has raised the issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(b), which is not arising from the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) impugned in the said appeal. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, which clearly show non-compliant, non-cooperative and negligent attitude of the assessee, it appears that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well 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 Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR Assessment Year: 2007-2008 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th day of February, 2018.