Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)
Smt. Annapurna Kundu, Hooghly Vs I.T.O., Ward-2(4), PAN: AFEPK 4967M Hooghly (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement :23.11.2015 ORDER Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XXXVI, Kolkata in Appeal No. 198/CIT(A)-XXXVI/Kol/ITO Ward-2(4)/Hgly/08-09 for the assessment year 2004-05 passed under section 143(3)/147/254 of the I.T.Act.
At the time of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 23.11.2015, despite the fact that the date of hearing on 23.11.2005 was informed to the assessee, when it was last fixed for hearing on 27.08.2015 through notice-board. It is, therefore, presumed that in spite of notice of hearing being informed, the assessee did not appear before the Bench on the date of hearing. On earlier several occasions also, the appeal was fixed for hearing but the assessee either did not turn up at the time of hearing or sought for adjournment. This time also, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing nor even he sought for Smt. Annapurna Kundu Assessment Year: 2004-05 adjournment. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted.
Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under:
“if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 5. Similarly, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.
Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.
Smt. Annapurna Kundu Assessment Year: 2004-05 7. So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd November, 2015.