Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, v. Assistant Commisioner of Income tax,

ITA 153/JAB/2015 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 15322914 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AAAAJ1410G
Bench Jabalpur
Appeal Number ITA 153/JAB/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit,
Respondent Assistant Commisioner of Income tax,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 07-11-2017
First Hearing Date 07-11-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 27-07-2015
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO. 153 /JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.153/JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT CIVIL LINES KANDELI NARSINGHPUR. PAN:AAAAJ 1410 G VS. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1(1) JABALPUR. (APP ELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD A.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A)-I JABALPUR DATED 04/03/2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2010-11. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BE FORE THE BENCH ON 07/11/2017. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASS ESSEE THROUGH RPAD WHICH HAS NOT COME BACK UNSERVED. THE LAWS AID THO SE WHO ARE VIGILANT NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIP LE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM 'VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUN. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI I. V. KHANDELWAL D.R. DATE OF HEARING 07/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/11/2017 I.T.A. NO. 153 /JAB/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 2 3. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) 2. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 ( P& H) 4. CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CAS ES CITED (SUPRA) WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON P ROSECUTION. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MOVE APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE ACT IN CASE HE SO DESIRES. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2 017 SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:08/11/2017 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R. ASST T. REGISTRAR