Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata

Sri Mukti Roy , Hooghly vs Ito, Ward - 23(3), Hooghly , Hooghly on 17 May, 2018

                    IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        KOLKATA BENCH (SMC), KOLKATA

                          [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM]
                              I.T.A. No. 119/Kol/2018
                             Assessment Year: 2010-11

Shri Mukti Roy.............................................................................................Appellant
27A, Bhattacharjee Garden Lane,
Serampore,
Hooghly - 712 203
[PAN: ADUPR 0648 E]

ITO, Ward 23(3)Hooghly......................................................................Respondent
Aayakar Bhawan,
Khadinamore, Chinsurah,
Hooghly - 712 101

Appearances by:
None appearing on behalf of the Assessee.
Shri S.M. Das, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue.
Date of concluding the hearing :           May 17, 2018
Date of pronouncing the order :            May 17, 2018

                                     ORDER

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeals) - 6, Kolkata dated 19.09.2017.

2. In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 18.04.2018. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 17.05.2018 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing by RPAD to the address of the assessee given in the appeal memo. On 17.05.2018 i.e. today, none however has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing 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. 119/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Mukti Roy

3. 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 Halkar 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 dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17th May, 2018.

Sd/-

(P.M. Jagtap) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/05/2018 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to:

1. Shri Mukti Roy, 27A, Bhattacharjee Garden Lane, Serampore, Hooghly - 712 203.

2. ITO, Ward-23(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Khadinamore, Chinsurah, Hooghly - 712 101.

3. The CIT(A)

4. The CIT

5. DR True Copy, By order, Sr. P.S. / H.O.O. ITAT, Kolkata