Anit Prakash Khairari v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-35(2), Kolkata
[Citation -2016-LL-0921-106]

Citation 2016-LL-0921-106
Appellant Name Anit Prakash Khairari
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward-35(2), Kolkata
Court ITAT-Kolkata
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/09/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Bot Summary: In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was fixed for hearing on 21.07.2016. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has been returned back by the Postal Authorities with a remark not known. The assessee thus has not even bothered to furnish his complete address in order to enable the service of notice. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum - vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.


I.T. A. No. 822/ KOL./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 1 of 2 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA SMC BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T .A. No. 822/KOL/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Shri Anit Prakash Khairari,.........................................................Appellant 1, Princep Street, Kolkata-700 072 [PAN : AFZPK 2944 K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.....................................................................Respondent Ward-35(2 ), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700 001 Appearances by: None, for assessee Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, D.R., for Department Date of concluding hearing : Ju ly 21, 2016 Date of pronouncing order : September 21, 2016 ORDER This appeal filed by assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata dated 24.03.2015. 2. In this case, appeal filed by assessee was fixed for hearing on 21.07.2016. Nobody, however, appeared on behalf of assessee on said date nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even notice sent to assessee by Registered Post with A/D at address given in appeal memo has been returned back by Postal Authorities with remark not known . assessee thus has not even bothered to furnish his complete address in order to enable service of notice. It appears from this conduct of assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before Tribunal. I . T. . N o. 8 2 2 / KO L . / 2 0 1 5 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 3. law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum - vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient . Considering facts and keeping in mind provisions of Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules as was considered in case of CIT vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and judgment of Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss same for non- prosecution. 4. In result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on September 21, 2016. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, 21 s t day of September, 2016 Copies to : (1) Shri Anit Prakash Khairari, 1, Princep Street, Kolkata-700 072 (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(2 ), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700 001 (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata; (4) Commissioner of Income Tax- , (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata Laha/Sr. P.S. Anit Prakash Khairari v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-35(2), Kolkata
Report Error