MD.JAVED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -52 (3) KOLKATA & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the fact that the appellant's counsel had returned the brief and informed the appellant to engage another lawyer, but the appellant had not done so. Furthermore, on the day the matter was called, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the Court found no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal. No issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.
What were the facts?
This is an appeal filed by the assessee, MD. JAVED, against an order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(3), Kolkata & Ors. The appeal, bearing number ITA/121/2012, was listed before the High Court at Calcutta. The learned advocate for the appellant initially appeared but subsequently returned the brief and informed the appellant to engage a different counsel. The appellant failed to make alternative arrangements. On the date of hearing, none appeared for the appellant.
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed. The Court had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal on merits or dismiss it due to the absence of the appellant and their counsel. The revenue, represented by Mr. Prithu Dudheria, appeared before the Court. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the merits of the case, but rather their presence in response to the listed appeal. The appellant's counsel had indicated their inability to proceed and had notified the appellant.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O – 120 ITA/121/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE MD. JAVED -Versus- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-52(3), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 27th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudheria Adv. …for the respondent/revenue. The Court : We have heard Mr. Sukalpa Seal, learned advocate, who was initially appearing for the appellant and Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned counsel appearing for the revenue. It is submitted by the learned advocate that he has returned the brief and also given no objection to the client to engage a different counsel and it appears, till date, that the appellant has not made any alternate arrangement on his part. The learned advocate had also sent a letter to the appellant on 20th November, 2022 informing that the matter was adjourned by this Court. Today, when the matter is called, none appears for the appellant.
2 In the light of the above, the appeal [ITA/121/2012] stands dismissed for non-prosecution. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/K. Banerjee
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
