What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. Following precedent, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order for AY 2014-15. The case was adjourned multiple times due to a strike and bench non-functionality. Despite a notice, the assessee did not appear or respond.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee.

Birat Kumar Mohapatra, Puri vs ITO | ITAT Cuttack 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Hearing: 25/1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.280/CTK/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

Birat Kumar Mohapatra, At: Vs. ITO, Puri. Kasarada, PO: Sampur, Via: Pipili, Dist Puri.. PAN/GIR No.ANBPM 0930 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Date of Hearing : 25/1/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 25 /1/ 2019

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)2, Bhubaneswar, dated

27.4.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.

Initially, the case was fixed for hearing on 24.10.2018.

When the case was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf

of the assessee due to strike called by the Bar Association of

Orissa. Hence, the hearing was adjourned to 19.12.2018. On

19.12.2018, the Bench did not function, therefore, the case was

adjourned to 25.1.2019. Notice dated 3.1.2019 posting the appeal

for hearing on 25th January, 2019 sent to the assessee by Speed

P a g e 1 | 2

Post to the address given in Form No.36, has not evoked any

response from the assessee. The assessee has also not submitted

any adjournment application. From the above, it is therefore

inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal

which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the

decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P)

Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del).

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 25 /1/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 25/1/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Birat Kumar Mohapatra, At: Kasarada, PO: Sampur, Via: Pipili, Dist Puri..

The Respondent. ITO, Puri 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//

Sr. Pvt.secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 2 | 2

BIRAT KUMAR MOHAPATRA,PURI vs. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments